Retro and the implementation chronology
Thu, 27 May 1999 22:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Ken Evitt wrote:
> I don't see any problem with bootstrapping TUNES to Retro or any new
> system--precisely because there are no better existing systems. Better--for
> what? I, and others, at this time, do not want anything other than a system
> that is what we want it to be. Better?
When I used th term better, I assumed it would be understood, I guess not.
Better means tools API's and libraries that have all the neat things like
distrbuted computing, networking, advanced video, SMP etc. that are
already there. It takes years to fully understand these concepts and there
is a reason why you couldn't get through all the reading if you tried,
these topics take a lot of investegation to fully undestand.
Anyone who thinks that a small group of programmers (some of whom are
beginners) can impliment these from the ground up, is nuts, you really
don't know what is involved.
It would be a royal pain in the ass
> to implement any kind of TUNES-like system on existing systems and then try
> and phase out the underlying system. With Retro, instead of phasing anything
> out we can write a system from the ground up that does what we want it to
Tell me you can impliement all those things that are mentioned above and I
will believe you.
Retro is already object-oriented--once tcn cleans this up and extends it
> the only thing left to do is implement a dynamic compiler for the HLL--if it
> ever appears--and if not, then he can just continue what he's doing
> now--integrating the best existing languages. I think we're forgetting the
> point of TUNES. TUNES is not some be all to end all super computational
> system that will solve every problem in computer science in a single stroke.
> The point of TUNES--the point of Retro--is freedom, the freedom to make a
> thing from the bottom up that is exactly what it intends to be. Anything men
> make can have integrity, just like a man, and just as seldom. That is the
> point of TUNES and Retro--the goal is not the programs that will be written
> or what they will be used for--but that we will be able to write the kind of
> programs that we want, that they will work the way we intend and that they
> will be able to do the things we want--that's it.
People also have the freedom to stand on their heads everytime they code,
but they don't because it wastes time. If the goal here is to gain some
very basic understanding of operating systems, then say so. I assure you,
without more reading and understanding, this attempt is nothing more than
an exercise in an undergraduate course. Making saomething boot and
getting characters to screen is kids stuff. WHo here has the
understanding of parallel programming to impliement it (not to mention all
the intended platforms that are listed on web pages. As I said I hate to
be the negative one, but the claims that some of you are making are
complete BS. They really show that you have very little practical
experience in this field. Take a reality pill folks; writing an OS with
all the features that would be needed to make something beyond a simple
exercise (and in assembler last I checked) requires a lot more
understanding and people.
> "Hello everybody out there using
- > I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
> professional like GNU) for 386(486) AT clones.This has been brewing since
> April, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people
> like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout
> of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).
> I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.This
> implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like
> to know what features most people would want.Any suggestions are welcome,
> but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
> Linus (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> PS.Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has multi-threaded fs.It is NOT
> portable (uses 386 task switching etc.), and it probably will never support
> anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(."
> Need I say anything else?
> -Ken Evitt