MOOSE

[Gary D. Duzan]

=>
=>> Flower"?  A name is just something to focus upon. That and the fact
=>> that I really don't like "MOOSE". :-)
=>
=>Why? It's memorable. It's humourous. What else do you want?
=>A horrible acronym  that was obviously put together? :-)

   No, but I think it is a little too much like GNU, and we should have
a name that can be taken seriously. The legendary Bullwinkle J. Moose
hasn't done much for the credibility for the species. :-)

=>>    The OS should always be for the programmers; the user interface
=>> should be for the users.
=>
=>Yes and no. The details of the system calls are irrelevant to the user.
=>The fact that the OS provides (Eg.) multitasking is VERY relevant to the 
=>user. 
=>
=>In other words the conceptual model and services provided are relevant.
=>
   True enough, but I think that the better the UI, the less the user
will have to worry about the services, and simply take them for granted.

=>>    David vs. Goliath? :-)
=>
=>Uhh, more like a lone pilot in a X-wing vs. the death star.
=>[How many billions is microsoft worth these days?]
=>
   Would you believe:  David vs. the Death Star. :-)

=>I do agree though that we need a starting base set of aplications.

   And the better the applications, the better the acceptance of the
system as a whole.

=>> =>I vote for making this program understandable for 99 percent of the 386
=>> =>computerusers, not 5 percent of them.
=>> 
=>>    I hope you mean the interface, and not the code. :-)
=>
=>I vote for making the OS INTERFACE understandable to 99% of programers.

   Absolutely. Well, at least those with a clue about objects.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration
                         Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts