Eric W. Biederman
04 Dec 1998 14:28:38 -0600
>>>>> "FR" == Francois-Rene Rideau <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> 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*.
FR> What we need is not another low-level kernel, per se.
FR> What we need is a high-level interface to the system,
FR> and a new low-level kernel is but a corollary of implementing it efficiently.
FR> Even such efficiency is not needed at first, so that a slow implementation
FR> of a high-level system on top of Linux is more interesting (to me, at least)
FR> than an efficient implementation of a low-level system directly on the raw
So from an practical/expiedient implementation perspection the question
is what building blocks can be reused so you can get a system function.
As far as I can tell Tunes is primarily about a fundamental
configuration mechanism, so a user can take a system and by
configuration make it something vastly different. But with
a simple model.
About programs knowing each others guts so they can make sophicatated
optimizations on each other.
About working transparently acros networks etc.
The key to all of this being the core communications protocols,
between programs so they can achieve all of theses things.
What I would suggest at the current time would be to find a CORBA ORB
you can stand, and start working out the details of what is needed for
programs to talk to/about each other reflexively.
Once the priniciples are firmly understood integration can happen at
lower, and lower levels of the system.
But what appears to be primarily needed is a standardized
communication mechanism (which ultimately may be shifted on the fly),
to allow tunes.
How does that sound as a starting point?