[Fwd: [unios] runtime example I] Forgot to send all :)

[Pat Wendorf]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------AAC83A3BF51C946D20475A6E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--------------AAC83A3BF51C946D20475A6E
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <36F71C6B.E47124A4@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:45:31 -0500
From: Pat Wendorf <beholder@ican.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anders Petersson <anders.petersson@mbox320.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: [unios] runtime example I
References: <199903221705.SAA20943@mb05.swip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anders Petersson wrote:

I clipped a bit here, because I addressed most of it in my reply to Pieter, so:

> OK, my own comments will be a little jumpy here. I'll use ">>" for text
> cited from the doc.
>
> Wouldn't it be feasible to choose type of system at installation -
> selections like 'home single-user', 'home multi-user', 'workstation',
> 'server', etc?

Yep this is a good idea, actually this is such a good idea, that it will most
likely be the final result.  However for the sake of simplicity for the home
user, this distribution does not give any options ;)  Home users want things to
happen, without making any decisions or thinking. (I know this is stereotyping,
but from my own experience it seems to be true).  So for this particular example,
we'll keep UniOS Home by itself.

> In addition you could choose system layout; win9x look (fool-proof),
> advanced (advanced options enabled), wizard (complete control), and so on...

Yep, also a very good idea, and again, this is only for this example.

> > When the system completes loading, the system informs him that UniOS only
> > installed enough to start the system, and that it must not determine what
>                                                          ^^^ ehrm

I'll get to that ;)

> > hardware he has, and install drivers for this.
>
> "UniOS System" - I'd prefer "Local system", since that more correctly says
> what it is. Or "Local root" or something (the link would lead to the root
> of the current user, I guess). That could be different for different
> distributions, however.

Yep, that was just a name I came up with, no need for it to stick.

> Instead of the 'System Desktop' item, have something like 'User interface
> configuration' or 'Windowing subsystem'.

Hmm... thoese terms sound very confusing to a new user... just the word
"subsystem" would send most of them into a panic :)  This is a very minor detail
at this point, I'd rather focus on working out the major parts of the system.

> 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.

We are not a group focused on backwards application compatibility, but I do think
we need backwords UI compatibility, and we may have to intentially make it the
same ol' illogical crap that MS did.

> The main reason you should switch to UniOS would *not* be its respond time
> - I don't think there's much room for improvements relative existing
> systems - especially not when regarding UniOS will make use of slightly
> more costly ways, traded for flexibility and consistence.

Agreed.

> >> NOTE 2: You may be asking yourself where the object orientedness of the OS
> >> comes into play.  It is throughout the system, but it's mostly behind the
> >> scenes. For examples there is no desktop wallpaper. The background is
> actually
> >> an application that always resides at Z(0) on the desktop. This is the
> same
> >> for the virtual "Start" bar, another object bound to Z(1).  However these
> >> elements are seamlessly integrated into the system design.
>
> 1) I can't agree that the OO aspects are hidden. They should truly affect
> the way you work - to the better.

The user doesn't care about the system paradygm, all he/she cares about is if the
system works with his/her programs.  The programmers, systems designers, and
power users are the only ones who will know it even exists.  I think the only way
it will ever be noticed by the end user is the lack difficulties they have with
the system (an impossible thing to measure).

> 2) Explain what you mean by 'Z(0)' and 'Z(1)'. Whatever it is, I don't like
> the idea with things hardwired to specific locations. What if you want
> several UI's?

Z-ordering is the 2D windowing method used by all GUI systems.  Z(0) is the
furthest back position in the stack Z(1) is the next up, etc, etc.  This example
only pretains to the flexible GUI system we plan on implementing into the system,
and how an object orented (totally flexible) system must handle things like
desktops, and menu bars.  There are always constants for how things must work
(like one window has to be behind another), Z-Ordering is pretty universal I
think.

> 3) I'm unsure if seamless integration into the system design is a good
> thing. The system design should rather be independent of anything like
> this, but have the ability to adopt new 'subsystems' at will. Seamlessly.

Hell no, the GUI is just another program running on the main system.  It takes
advantage of the Graphics Adaptor to be a management level for programs that hook
into it, it can be replaced or not used at all.

> >> "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 very configurable.  X is broken up into three pieces:  Server -> Window
Manager -> Applications.   The server is a program that takes advantage of the
graphics adaptor, but does nothing more that provide services to the Window
Manager and Applications.  For example, if you start the server up, without a
Window Manager (UI), you get a greyish screen, in which you can move your mouse,
but thats about it :)  There are a couple of static key combo's that belong to
the server (like Kill server - CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE), but all the keys are
remapable also, as is what the mouse buttons do. This window manager handles all
of thoese tasks.  Applications are essentially just X * Y sized windows that can
only write within their own window.  It's a very nice system, but the flexibility
is one of the major problems with it <gasp>.  The problem exists that there is no
real standard desktop that people can learn (they all act similar, but not enough
for a home user).

> >> " system prompts him with a box saying that the application was removed
> >> entirely" - This is another example of the object paradigm. All
> applications
> >> are stored as a tree structure, with their Icon (in GUI mode) as the top
> of
> >> the tree. Once the Icon is deleted, so goes the program.
>
> I'd say that applications are contained in packages of common format. The
> top object (the container) would support an 'application' interface,
> exporting things as icon, ways to launch the application and so on. If you
> delete such a package - well, then you really delete the application,
> period. You don't act on the icon, you act on the package itself.
> Note: The term "package" is a loan from Alan Grimes, but I consider the
> usage as my own.

Sounds better than my own explaination, I'll use that next time.

> PS.
> I think the new way XOOM advertises on pages is very bad. If UniOS grows
> more serious, it's my opinion we should get our own domain and server.
> How's the site mirrors doing, BTW?

XOOM is pissing me, and most of it's members off with that stupid bar.  I even
wrote them a letter stating that the people that frequent this page will most
likely find that bar a complete annoyance, and would never visit their
advertisers, or buy any products (I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions, they
only seem to sell crap).

The UniOS server is still beyond my control... in other words, I have only user
level access, without any webspace (essentially it's just a shell server right
now).  The owner of the server is VERY new to linux, and doesn't know how to set
certian things up properly (like web access), and due to his extreme schedule, I
cannot find time to sit down at the server (which is locked up tight in a room
that students are shot if they step it ;), and do some modifications.  Hell, I'd
be happy to have an auto jump from the Xoom page to the new server, even if it's
just an IP without a domain name.  But on a brighter note, the server can feed
100-200K/s  which is way more than we need at the moment.

*Please note, I am being dead serious*:  I was told that if I could HACK the
system to get root access, I would be able to keep it... this is a challenge to
anyone who is up to it.  I have a shell account on the system already with user
level access, and I'll hand it over to anyone who thinks they can do it.  The OS
is an "out of the box", Red Hat 5.2, without any security patches. Password
shadowing has NOT been implemented, and the passwd file is accessible.  Maybe
I'll forward this to the Tunes people also, I think there are some Linux guru's
in that bunch.  Keep in mind the sysadmin is not only *OK* with this, he is
advocating it, you will not be sent to jail :)  The only condition is that we
have to reveal how we did it (for future security).

As for the site mirrors (Geocities, and Tripod, found in the links page), I still
update them every time I update the Xoom page, but they have almost (if not more)
advertising than the new Xoom thing.


--------------AAC83A3BF51C946D20475A6E--