What's in a name?

[Mike Prince]

On Mon, 7 Nov 1994, Johan Van Schalkwyk wrote:

> 	- just have a bit of fun writing YET ANOTHER "O/S"
> 		(however smart, cute, fast, etc)?

Nope, you discuss later the criterion of the OS being commercially 
feasable.  That is a very important point.  Even if we DON'T intend to 
make money the project should be driven by a "virtual bottom line".  It 
has to at least fill a niche, or stand the long term chance of standing 
on its own or being integrated into a bigger product.  This should not 
be for the fun of it.  (although I hope it turns out to be fun :)

> 	- make a really significant contribution to "o/s" design?

That's what I'd like to do, and why Kyles survey is very important.

> 	- kick Mickeysoft up the a*** by writing such a hot-shit system
> 		with universal application that everyone leaps on the
> 		bandwagon and uses it extensively on their PCs 
> 		(dream on)...

I can dream too, as long as I recognize it's just a dream...yawn

> 	- slavishly pay tribute to some "object-oriented" paradigm simply 
> 	because it seems like a good idea..

That's something I worry about.  OO's cool, but we have to make sure it 
fills the bill the way we need it.  We can't force it in.  Then we'd have 
an OO kludge.  (BTW, I'm ready for the flames...)

> I believe that for "our" project to have any impact whatsoever (surely 
> what we are really looking for is IMPACT), it must have two components:
> 	a. Good design that really works for the end user!
> 	b. It must sell well.

Very good point, I'll advocate again that we pursue a virtual bottom line 
approach.  If you couldn't sell it for money, how good is your design really?

> "It must sell well" implies that the product we are creating MUST have 
> certain attributes:
> 	- It must be readily identifiable

Back to our "good naming" problem.

> 	- We must position it in the market so that it occupies clear
> 		"niches" or has well-demarcated attributes that make it
> 		desirable (People must want to use it because it does
> 		certain things that are not readily available on current
> 		systems)

As part of our goals we have to identify the intial "target" 
applications, that our system will aim to cater to.

> If we are going to make a success of our "project" 
> then we cannot employ a shotgun approach - we must carefully identify 
> those areas where:
> 	a. there is a need, and
> 	b. we have expertise
> and exploit these to their full potential.

Right on!

Mike