[unios] runtime example I

[Pieter Dumon]

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Anders Petersson wrote:

> Pieter Dumon wrote:
>
> >If you make UniOS really transparent, the second example in the
> >document is also not very 'clean': the user shouldn't be confronted
> >with the fact that the image is BMP or TIFF or whatever, but if the
> >user would like, to he/she _can_ get the information, convert image
> >formats to each other etc...
> 
> That's right, the example is gravely misleading. Neither converting or
> format restrictions should be used. This is where OO comes in play. Our
> friend Bob would be presented with a dialog box showing all available
> objects with an appropriate 'image interface'. He could choose any object
> aspiring to be an image. Or maybe even an animation.
> The image interface would in some way be a subset of the animation
> interface. How? There's several possible ways... one is to register a
> system-wide translation filter, knowing how to represent an image as an
> animation. Requests for an animation interface would yield the image
> interface with the translation filter in front of it. No, this isn't
> completely satisfactory, but it's a beginning.


This is how it should be indeed...
 
> >The shutdown thing is, on the other hand, a good example: 
> >an OS called UniOS Home PC needs to be able to be shut down easily
> >by a normal user. Let's not forget this is not the fact for lots of
> >computers. The computer on which I'm sitting right now typing this is
> >our local Linux web/proxy/mail server. You cannot let such a system be
> >shut down by a normal user. Only a privileged (on Unix 'root') user
> >must be able to do that. But, indeed, for home users, shutting down
> >their computer must be possible whithout trouble.
> 
> You can't keep the user from pushing the power button or simply pulling the
> plug, of course... but software shutdown should be completely protectable.
> That shouldn't be a problem to achieve.

Hmm. Not all computers have something like a power button... The server
here is a normal PC, but all buttons are disconnected, and the plug is
unreachable... Well, it doesn't matter anyway.

 
> Instead of the 'System Desktop' item, have something like 'User interface
> configuration' or 'Windowing subsystem'.
> Maybe the 'Configure system' item should be abandoned altogether and have
> its items moved to 'Application', or 'Running subsystems'.
> But then again, he wanted a win9x UI, so why not.

These are UI discussions... doesn't matter for now, does it? 
 
> >> "despite the strange ways the mouse and keyboard works" - UniGUI would be 
> >> totally configurable, like X. 
> 
> Enlighten me on this, is X really _totally_ configurable?


X is REALLY TOTALY configurable. Do you have keyboard with 20 keys , or a
mouse with 10 buttons, or 30 screens and 20 graphic cards, or do you want
to run your applications on a server and let the screen being used your
local screen, or do you want to pop up applications on other people's
screens, or do you want to put 10 buttons on your window borders instead
of the standard minimize and maximize, or you want 10 virtual desktops, or
you want your desktop being larger than your screen, or you just have a
monochrome screen or only have a 80386 PC or you want to use the buttons
from your microwave-oven as keyboard over a TCP/IP link or you want your
windows transparent or make the window borders a little wider or you want 
another style of buttons on you window border? No problem for X. Just a
"little" configuring... It's all possible with X - with a little effort. 
 
Pieter

----------------------------------------
 Pieter.Dumon@rug.ac.be              
 pdumon@vtk2.rug.ac.be
                                     
 http://studwww.rug.ac.be/~pdumon     
 
 ICQ  : 12428974
---------------------------------------