[unios] Re: UniOS Definition & Direction

[OJ Hickman]

From: OJ Hickman <hickman1@peak.org>

Pat Wendorf wrote:
> 
> From: Pat Wendorf <beholder@ican.net>
> 
> I'd like to take the time to define, in my own words, what UniOS is.  I
> do this for the sake of clarification (for myself as well as others),
> and so we have a reference definition on which to change or enhance.
> This may also give us a direction to move from, as we are not
> progressing at a noticeable rate.

We don't want UniOS to degenerate into an endless debate, like
some OS projects . . .

> Premise #1 - What UniOS IS
>    UniOS "standard" is _only_ the specific binary format that the
> objects are stored in, and the backwards compatible, well defined,
> hardware abstracted objects and drivers that the system is promised to
> have on each platform to allow cross platform development.  Essentially,
> this is all that we are creating... A new, simple, portable, flexible
> yet well defined standard for application development.

So UniOS is going to be some sort of standards body?
Replace POSIX?

> Premise #2 - What UniOS ISN'T
>    UniOS "standard", is _not_ the boot loader, the configuration
> methods, the IPC, the memory manager, the language, object
> interaction/sharing/ordering, 

Good.

> the executable format, 

I don't understand. First you say the binary object format is part
of the standard then say the executable is not?

> the script format,

I may disagree on this. Language Oriented Subsystems may still
have some value.

> the platform, the applications, or the interface.  These can be (are)
> all implementation specific.

Naturaly.

> Premise #3 - What UniOS WILL BE
>    UniOS as a whole (project/distribution), is a unified set of #1 and
> #2 elements, into a cohesive logical OS.

A reference distribution?

> Premise #4 - What UniOS MIGHT BE
>    If we end up with a fragmented UniOS Project, and if every fragment
> follows #1, all systems would be application level compatible.

Very likely. Computers are used in so many diverse ways, a true
'Universal Operating System' is _very_ unlikely to work.
But a standard . . .

> I feel it's time to start working on some standards.

It will have to be broken down into specific catagories of
standardization. It would be best to start at the programing
level [APIs] and work our way down.

> We have, in the
> last few months discussed almost every advantage and disadvantage to
> every known OS model, and have come to some important, well informed,
> logical conclusions. I'd like to state the two that I think everyone was
> not be able to choose between, and possibly force a decision out of
> everyone, or at least improvement of the document:
> 
>                                 http://members.unios.com/proposed_final_layout.html

If its going to be a reference system for a standard then it
ought to be based on a fairly conventional kernel.
 
> If anyone disagrees with these concepts, speak up.

Maybe the project should be divided into a cooperating 'Standards Rearch
Group'
and an 'Implamention Reasearch Group'. What do you think?

_______________________________________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstein

Omer James Hickman - hickman1@peak.org - ojh@hotmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/~OJ_Hickman - updated 12/28/98

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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