Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:22:02 +0100
>>> What we lack is well-defined guides for implementing high-level things.
>>> Or else, we'll end like VSTa.
> What's the matter w/ VSTa?. It's a really nice system which *works*.
VSTa sure does work, and technically, it's a great piece of software.
However, I'm not sure what it does besides working.
What goals has it, besides the own fun of the developer?
What has it to propose to potential users/developers,
as compared to, say, classical Unices (Linux, *BSD)?
Instead of VSTa, I could said MMURTL, or LS-DOS, or TINOS, or whatelse.
What we need is not another low-level kernel, per se.
What we need is a high-level interface to the system,
and a new low-level kernel is but a corollary of implementing it efficiently.
Even such efficiency is not needed at first, so that a slow implementation
of a high-level system on top of Linux is more interesting (to me, at least)
than an efficient implementation of a low-level system directly on the raw
> No flame wars, please.
No flame war intended.
## Faré | VN: Ð£ng-Vû Bân | Join the TUNES project! http://www.tunes.org/ ##
## FR: François-René Rideau | TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System ##
## Reflection&Cybernethics | Project for a Free Reflective Computing System ##
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.