Everyone chill

[Pat Wendorf]

Maneesh Yadav wrote:

> Yikes, the mailing list is getting heated....LET"S NOT START A FLAMEWAR.
> These things start by miscommunication, let's all understand that, and I'm
> not for the bad karma generated.

I agree, I don't think a group cannot function well if each individual wishes
to only
present his point of view, without truly understanding the others.  I choose
to not
discuss the current thread, simply because I have not had the time to read and

understand the documents in question.  Maybe that is for the best.

> On the other hand, I can understand Brian's point of view, it brings the
> frustration of this "project" to the forefront.  Nothing useful has been
> done, I've been on this list since high school and I'm now in University!
> We've got to face a bit of reality and realize that with current rate, we
> won't get anywhere
>
> We have all got to agree to a common goal

And how do you propose that 100 people (potentially), could agree on a single
answer to such a complex problem (I assume you all agree that it IS a problem
that we are finding a solution to... or maybe part of the
no-project-advancement
is the fact that the problem has not been properly defined?).  So maybe I can
ask you all a question:  Is this a group dedicated to finding the best
possible way to make the computer do stuff (meta programming), or a
group, who's purpose it is to find the best possible way to ALLOW the
computer to do stuff (OS).  I know most would say both... but how can
one unified group do both?  Can someone define the goal of TUNES in
a single sentence, that can be understood, and agreed upon by everyone?
I know there are a lot of good ideas (brilliant in most cases), but what is
"The TUNES Problem", what is "The TUNES solution", and how do all of these
ideas fit in?

Ignoring the above babble from myself, my point is, and has always been:
We need a defined problem.  We need a defined solution.  But, like
most things, I'm sure this is much easier said than done...

> Our goals right now are quite frankly ridiculously disjoint.  We've got to
> look at the big picture.  I don't know if what Brian has put out is
> correct/useful as I have not fully read the paper, but I am very amazed
> that at
> least he and I are on the same track (and I didn't really realize it
> until the paper) and what I am sure about is that the goals he proposes
> are the ones we should follow, at least first, for our project. As for tcn
> and _QZ (I am speaking
> objectively here, please do not take this personally); you're efforts
> really are going to waste..the world doesn't need a half baked ukerenel.
> You will never impliment all the features to make it a viable system the
> way you are doing it (aka the way it has always been done); and I assure
> you you will not spawn another linux movement to suppourt your systems. We
> don't need a low level API, there are millions out there, and just about
> all of them have a greater amount of coding hours put into them than
> yours.

What your saying here, is to drop the idea of making an OS, and focus on
making a
high level framework that defines how programs (or whatever they will be
called),
should be made?  Under that assumption, TUNES would have to evolve into an
OS at a later point. (maybe even programmed with itself?).  So TUNES should be

strictly a language project, and we should drop the whole idea of creating an
OS,
until the main project is completed.

If I understand you correctly, I believe this would be a good idea, but would
everyone who signed up to work on the "TUNES OS" agree?  Tunes is known
as an OS project (and is stated as such on many different pages), would it
be prudent to change the focus entirely?  I'm not asking the questions for
myself, I just wondering what everyone else thinks about this.  It's more
of a political type issue, rather than a technical one.

> Also we come from varying degrees of background in CS...I believe it is
> possible to coordinate such an effort, but the goals must be written down
> in one clear cut manner such that there is no ambiguity (which we are
> soaked in right now).

That is true.  Rather than let all the theoretical stuff pervade, maybe the
disenchanted coders can have something to sink their teeth into.  But again
there are lots of us in the project, how will we all agree?  It's hard to hold

a democracy with some things, such as this.  But then again, it's hard to
let one person decide the fate of the project, which could cause many
to break off an do their own thing, or quit the scene entirely.  Is there
any one point that we all can agree on?

> Ok so what's the point?  Before we do anything we have to explore concepts
> of how to represent concepts...once we agree how to do it then we can go
> on.  For now I suggest that everyone read Brian's paper, read up on
> catagorey theory and other background took...then we can decide.
> Hopefully it won't take us long.  I also want to us to get a group
> agreement to stay away from designing a traditional OS...it's been done
> many many times;  so why doesn't everyone who agrees with the idea of
> focusing on the metaprogramming aspect and leaving the OS design alone for
> awhile please say so.
>
> I don't mean to come across liek the big boss, but something has to be
> done about the confusion and lack of direction and it might take a bit of
> forced opinion to get there.

I wasn't insulted, it was probably the same way most of the group felt.

I guess to summarize the post... You're absolutely right... but how do we fix
it?
Can we even agree on a method of HOW to fix it ;)

--
-----------------------------
Pat Wendorf
UniOS Group
http://unios.dhs.org
beholder@ican.net
ICQ: 1503733
-----------------------------