[unios] Re: UniOS Definition & Direction

[Pat Wendorf]

From: Pat Wendorf <beholder@ican.net>

> > 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?

I wanted to shy away from creating any standards and be completely based on work already
done, however this seems like a better (only) way of doing things.

> > 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 object format is cross platform distributable, much like Java byte code.  It is not
meant to execute, other than in interpreted mode.  I suspect it would only make sense, if
each object can be compiled onto a target system to allow speed increases.  In other
words, everything is distributed in the object format, and is compiled when it is
installed (becomes a semi-permanant part of the system).

> > the script format,
>
> I may disagree on this. Language Oriented Subsystems may still
> have some value.

So maybe the script format should closely follow the object format (except in plain
text), and be part of the UniOS "standard" definition?  After thinking about it, I may
have to agree on this.

> > 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?

A singular first release with the absolute basics to get things rolling, and then people
can do what they want with the system.  This includes any outside project customizations,
and distributions.

> > 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 . . .

What I mean is that the object format remains the same across all implementations.  How
the system looks/acts, is a totally different matter.  If we end up with so much
disagreeance on low level implementation, then we may have to compromise on having
different running models.  My hope however is to make all the potential variations into a
whole, and have something that can watch the system and determine how it is used, and
automatically (or manually), plug in the right system components.

> > 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.

I was thinking to start on the object format first, then move on to the hardware abstract
objects/drivers.  If we vote on the necessity of a kernel, then we will work out the
kernel API, otherwise we determine which functions go into the system abstract.

> > 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.

So you vote kernel?

> > If anyone disagrees with these concepts, speak up.
>
> Maybe the project should be divided into a cooperating 'Standards Research
> Group'
> and an 'Implemention Reasearch Group'. What do you think?

Until the standards group is done, the implementation group would not be able to do
anything, so I'd rather if all members worked on the same ideas at the same time.  That
way we can all participate.

--
-----------------------------
Pat Wendorf
UniOS Group
http://members.xoom.com/unios
beholder@ican.net
ICQ: 1503733
-----------------------------



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