[unios] Re: Networked GUI (was Posix and Networks)

[Pieter Dumon]

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

> 
> From: Anders Petersson <anders.petersson@mbox320.swipnet.se>
> 
> >
> >I want both explicit terminal access. (Oh yes, I do like Unix/X),
> >and hidden remote access. 
> 
> Would it do, if you could explicitly log in remotely and then work as usual?

I meant I would like a Unix-like terminal, _and_ X terminal _and_ NT login
_and_ fullly transparent networking.

 
> What about a pluggable sub-system, that distributed computations can be run
> under? Everybody that runs the sub-system would take part in the
> computation, with the priority of the sub-system on each machine. Really
> neat if you ask me.

Ah, that would be useful and pretty easy to implement.

 
> Hehe, NT really sucks. And no, let's not re-do old errors... let's find new
> ones! ;-)

:-)

> >> Oh yes. I see no need to use the same program (as long as the effect is
> >> equal, the method dones't matter), but sharing data is very useful. Just
> >> have all users open the same file in a special shared mode, and they are
> >> notified when changes are made by others and what's changed (changes are
> >> seen directly). This requires little effort from the application
> programmer.
> >
> >I think it shared programs would be useful too.
> 
> I maybe think of this different from you. The binary program could always
> be shared, but that's just so evident. What I mean is that as long as the
> program can read the data and update when someone else makes changes, what
> program you use doesn't matter.

No, what Pat meant was actually working with the same program at the same
time, I think. 
 
> >> An ordinary home user is not in possession of a network. In those cases,
> >> these features are not loaded or even not installed at all. Flexibility...
> >
> >That's exactly why we need the flexibility. The normal user's don't need
> >it, but the UniOS designers will, and sysadms on servers, powerusers and 
> >developpers will.
> 
> Never say never... flexibility could come in handy even for ordinary
> users... Imagine they just run a general system update, and all updates are
> done... without rebooting and without interaction from the amazed lamer.
> That's flexibility.

OK.
 
> >> I have another suggestion. Redundance in networking, which allows one or
> >> several nodes to fail without loss of the joint computation or information.
> >> To how big degree this can be done by the OS I don't know, but it's
> >> certainly useful. What if you could just declare some data to logically
> >> exist on the network, and it's automatically mirrored on several nodes,
> >> with accesses made to the nearest copy without any effort from the
> >> application's side? 
> >> binEng
> >> 
> >
> >Hm. What you are referring to, is ont of the buzz-words of the last year,
> > CLUSTERING. Unix can do it, MS just starts to get some in-the-field
> >experience. It's really important for a corporate server-OS.
> 
> Yep. Should be done as something like a virtual device driver. Doesn't need
> to be done from the very beginning.

No, but it's pretty hard to implement correctly and foremost crash-proof.
MS developpers are really not _that_ bad. It just takes some time to
implement it.
To give an example of how long it takes to get an OS _really_ good:
 Unix is now 30 years old. It started in 1969 as a single-user
multitasking system, then it was made multi-user. Now it's the most
capable OS in the world. Scalability is not something that was invented
as a buzz-word to obstruct MS. No, it is what Unix is and what NT is not.
Unix can run on very small integrated systems, as well as PCs, as well as
multiprocessor servers a well as CRAYS etc. It can run on all cpus you can 
imagine. But still, it takes Unix lots of time to be ported stable.
Unix isn't explicitly 32 or 64-bits, and while it is fairly easy to
implement a new Unix kernel for, say the new 64-bit Merced that's coming
up, it is fairly hard to make it also _stable_ and optimized. MS is
allready working on a 64-bits NT for the Merced. It will take them years
to get it stable, but they will realease it before it is stable (Stable is
not what I call NT, it's what I call Unix), allthough the NT design would
make it easier to port NT to a new machine than Unix. It's just that MS
doesn't have experience with something other than x86. Also, Unix
corporations are spending much more time on their OS before it is released
than MS. I can't believe it MS is doing so stupid. You must know that
they once were the manufacturer of one of the most popular Unices, namely
XENIX. Do you know some people are really starting to fear for MS? Not
based on speculations, but on facts! Some people predict MS won't last  
for long anymore ...  I don't know. They got big money and can survive
lots of things, but they are now being attacked on their own field:
 - Linux is being made more user-friendly, whike retaining its power 
 - Samba on Linux can now run NT domain servers etc, so you can build a
   complete NT network without using NT, and integrate Win95 PC's or so.
 - Linux also runs Netware, so Linux runs NDS! Bye,bye Active Directory.
  
> >An OS that can run _really_ non-stop (off course on the best hardware),
> >should be able to be implemented too. Although... Tandy and some others
> >seem to be the only firms able to do this... So it is rather difficult, I
> >think.   
> 
> No reboots? That is a good goal. The final test of stability.

It's off course only achievable on Tandy-like machines. But with no
reboots I mean NO reboots. All lesser Unix systems have to reboot some
time in their lifetime. Tndy Unix systems don't. (QNX is just like that)
 
Pieter

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UniOS Group
http://members.xoom.com/unios