MOOSE details!
Gary D. Duzan
duzan@udel.edu
Mon, 15 Feb 93 08:43:20 -0500
=>So, here's my best and most current "definition" of Moose:
=>
=>"Moose will be a fully interrupt driven, preemptive, priority-based
=>multithreaded system."
=>
=>Now I know this is a very broad definition, and it missed a lot (such
=>as networking support). But does it sound good? Is it going to be
=>preemptive? Will it be multi-threaded?
Sounds like a good place to start, anyway. I don't know if the
kernel itself needs to be multithreaded since most of the functionality
will be implemented in higher-level objects, but those objects should
certainly be multithreaded.
=>So what do you all think? Should I type in all my scribblings and
=>send them out, or is it still way too early for that stuff? And is
=>the kernel the first thing we should design? I have my ideas, as we
=>all do, so I vote we start doing some down-to-earth design work.
I'd say, go ahead and post them. Then we can discuss whether they
are appropriate to the project.
=>So far I've come up with this:
=>The kernel should be coded in C/asm.
Agreed.
=>As much of the system from there should be object based (C++ my vote).
Fair enough, I suppose.
=>It will supply a GUI and command-line shells.
Good. Applications should be encouraged to use the GUI, while
utilities should use character mode. We will need to decide whether
to support switching from GUI-mode to full screen text on the console.
=>We will read DOS FAT file systems.
Yes, I think this would be wise, as long as it isn't the primary file
system.
=>Is this complete? Is anything incorrect? I think we should begin to
=>focus and get things like these out in the open, and slowly begin to
=>narrow down and better define our OS.
It is far from complete, I'm sure, but what you have stated sounds
good. We have to define it at some point, so we might as well start now.
Gary Duzan
Time Lord
Third Regeneration
Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts