[unios] Re: draft doc

[Pieter Dumon]

From: Pieter Dumon <Pieter.Dumon@rug.ac.be>

> 
> From: Pat Wendorf <beholder@ican.net>
> 
> >  - How can the FS load files if there are no drivers (low-level
> >    abstracts) yet?
> 
> Good question. I do believe that the boot loader, might have to have the FS
> information in there, which loads all the low, then high abstracts, then deal
> with the config information.  But we also need something that determines which
> low levels to load.. Anyone have any good ideas?

The boot loader could interprete a load script (very powerful) that tells
it also wich modules (files) to load and how to link or position them.
In this way, multiple low-level objects could be loaded depending on some
user input or input from the script.
 
> >  - Installing the system for single- or multi-user mode isn't very
> >    flexible. We must be able to switch between many configurations at
> >    run-time. e.g., in Unix multiple runlevels are defined, one runlevel
> >    is for shutdown, one for reboot, one for single-user mode, one for
> >    multi-user mode, one for multi-user mode with network etc... You can
> >    change these runlevels as you want, adding or removing services from
> >    them (eg. logging) , and you can specify which kind of users can log in
> >    into the system when the system is in a certain runlevel. The root can
> >    switch runlevels at run-time with the 'init <runlevel>' command.
> 
> That makes sense, and the model could support that within the system abstract.
> Maybe if the system has only one user, that lacks a password, THEN it would
> boot without the log in screen.  I'm only thinking of the home user with this
> one.  Some people live alone, or share their computer with family, who do not
> need separate user profiles.  This log in method should automatically enforce
> internet security (no external log in), for obvious reasons.

Off course, I understood what you mean... We musn't bother home users or
users on a non=protected system with passwords etc... :-)

> >    Just to give an example :-)
> >    It should be made even more flexible than Unix...
> 
> Yes, I agree.  The model, as it stands seems more flexible than Unix, in that
> there is no rigidly enforced methods of interaction (other than you have to use
> the abstracts), it's just how we will work out the technical details of how to
> implement it, if it's chosen as the model for the project.


OK

Pieter
 
----------------------------------------
 Pieter.Dumon@rug.ac.be               
                                      
 http://studwww.rug.ac.be/~pdumon     
 
 ICQ  : 12428974
---------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
At last! The perfect gifts for baseball fans...or anyone. Merchandise from
the Sonoma County Crushers, champions of the Western Baseball League (USA).
Go to http://www.icatmall.com/crushers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UniOS Group
http://members.xoom.com/unios