Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:31:55 -0400 (EDT)
With respect to Pat's letter (sorry for not quoting it's cause of my
I propose the common goal is this, first to define a framework that
defines concepts. Basically something that has at the
very least the exact same GOALS as Brian's arrow system (myabe his is the
solution, maybe not, we don't know yet but the more I read the nicer it
The plan to me looks like this;
Once we have that, we have a way of the computer understanding something
like an API or any program, and with that understanding it can do things
like verify the program function, glue API's together automagically etc.
Once we have the specification down in stone, we can try to impliement it.
Once that's impliented using currently available tools on an existing OS
(probably linuux since most of us have PCs and linux has lot's of good
tools regarding language etc.). Once that is working we might want to
design meaty OS chunks with our system, things like filesystems,
schedulers, a sort of specification of the hardware we are working on (so
our system can handle OS specific stuff like memory paging etc. for
us); under our system things should be dynamic so that one can change
features of any of the components we designed in real time, as no one
general component will be the most effective for all jobs. Then we can do
games, word processers etc.
And that is what I believe is a plan.
Objections..what are they?
Tunes won't evolve into an OS..it's really a mix up of words. What we
want is a framework on how to deal with
concepts, then to sort of bootstrap and immerse the computer in that
framework will consitiute an environment or an OS...call it what you will.
By designing our OS with our meta framework, makes an OS that is
beutifully created, dynamic and sorts of other nice words...everything
(memory manager, scheduler, vmem etc.) is a component of the system,
and the OS becomes a set of concepts that are connected to most other
programs.and it can "understand" the programs that are in it(be able to
prove functionality), just how
everything is represented will ultimately be a choice of the user, as no
one context fits all.
So this is my solution, can we agree on it?