[unios] Re: UniOS Definition & Direction

[Pat Wendorf]

From: Pat Wendorf <beholder@ican.net>

> >> > I feel it's time to start working on some standards.
>
> That is not what I feel. How likely is it that a handful of random people
> come together, talk for a couple of months, and then creates the best OS
> ever? We're not even clear over the design yet.
> Our time will come. Eventually.

I mean standards for things like the object format.  Things that are independent
of implementation specifics.

> >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.
>
> NO VOTE! If we reason about it, we will discover if it's needed or not.
> These are technical issues, not beliefs.

I have been approached by a few of the UniOS members, and I myself agree:  If
there is no decisions, there is no progress, and we end up in an endless
technical banter like Tunes was for a while.  This was not only a call to define
what we are, but more to shake up the discussion.

> And please, don't rush ahead. If you do, you will miss the careful design
> that we *need* to be able to succeed. If an OS of this kind was easy to do,
> why are there so few of them, if any at all? Not because the system
> designers weren't quick enough, at least. Rather the contrary.

I agree that good design takes time, but there are things we CAN decide on.  Once
we decide, we can still make little changes afterwards, I just want to know where
everyone stands.  If I can find out what everyone wants out of the UniOS project,
we can work better.  It's just a call to make a few minor decisions (like OS
model ;).

> >> > 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
>
> Neither of the models presented on that page are enough detailed or 100%
> correct. They won't do for "final models".

Thank you! :)  You're the first person to even comment on them! :)  Now that
that's out of the way, how can we improve on those models, or will we need new
ones?

> >> > If anyone disagrees with these concepts, speak up.
>
> I disagree with 1) your eagerness for votes, and 2) your haste.

I only wanted to get people thinking again, and planning :)  We have a good
group, but more focus on the basics of the design will advance.  I find we jump
from topic to topic in the list, which is not a bad thing, but will does not seem
to be getting us closer to a final "big picture" OS model (which I believe is the
first step).  If I'm wrong in this assumption, then maybe we should all vote (yes
the evil "v" word :) on where we should start, or even if we agree that we are
making progress.

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