From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-21 08:05:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B82789B.8D195045@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Progress on AdaOS (Was: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red References: <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com> <9l6pdo$rlo$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> <9IFe7.12813$6R6.1221214@news1.cableinet.net> <9lghqu$ac6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7C3293.76F49097@home.com> <9lhefg$lgd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7D47F1.25D6FC78@boeing.com> <5ee5b646.0108171856.18631c4c@posting.google.com> <3B7F624B.7294D24F@acm.org> <9lr6je$5hj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9ltoi7$4is$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:05:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:05:00 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12175 Date: 2001-08-21T15:05:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > "Didier Utheza" wrote in message > news:Pine.A41.4.10.10108201848570.29818-100000@acs5.bu.edu... > > > > Now, in the case of AdaOS. The project has, as you said, two major > > difficulties. The first one is to develop a C-independent compiler. This > > implies to actually develop several kernels to address the various > > processor (intel, alpha,...). The development of an Ada compiler is not > > given to everybody. Maybe a cooperation between the AdaOS team and the > > GNAT group could ease things a little bit. Everyone will gain from it, and > > the time spend on it would be less. > > > Don't know what you mean by a "C-independent compiler". An Ada compiler not > written in C? I don't think it makes much difference. At this stage of the game, it matters not whether there is C-code in the compiler or not. As Marin has already pointed out, the focus should be the OS. Work on the "purist level motives" later when you have something. > If it were my project, the first thing to do would be to put the project on > some sort of basis by which the developers stand to make some money off of > it. That would create some incentive to actually get something done. Money would help, but unless some white knight shows up with a keen interest in the project, I think you have to look elsewhere for motivation. I believe that many Ada people would be willing to contribute to any AdaOS project that is showing significant progress. You need achievable milestones, otherwise the project just languishes. > From there, you just pick a compiler as an interim development tool. (Gnat > would probably do just fine for a time.) I can see why it would be desirable > for the project to have its own compiler eventually, but there are lots of > good compilers that could get you started with what the *real* mission is: > developing an OS. Target the PC architecture initially, but leave the door > open for everything else and work the compiler issue as a sideline effort. Precisely - target the PC platform, and use what you have. Learn as you go, as there will be design lessons learned along the way (note the lessons that Linux has learned, and in some cases re-learned ;-) > > The other difficulty is of course to start developping the OS itself. As > > it was said in the thread, if you have to wait for the compiler before > > developping the OS, it will become a fuzzy dream (it may become it > > already). Now since we have GNAT, it is still possible to start something > > and the members of the team that direct the project will have to do at > > some point the transition. The GNAT group may be interested (a scary > > That's the point: If you're going to build an OS then build an OS! Stay on > target and don't get distracted by the things that are sideline issues. Get > some minimal, working kernel going and people may get more interested in > contributing as they have something to play with and enhance. Someone could use GNAT under DOS (even FREEDOS?), which is quick to boot, although it is a severe/humble development environment. Compile your O/S code, and run it, and have it "take over" the real-mode DOS session, and launch into the test of the O/S. When/if it crashes, just quickly reboot your DOS session and work on your next incantation. You then have the compiler you need, and you don't even have to fuss with booting issues at this point. The issue at hand, as pointed out above, is to get _something_ working. > Any project needs some strong leadership to point the direction, inspire the > troops and keep things on-track. An OS is pretty ambitious and I doubt that > it can be done by committee. If a project like this is to succeed, it needs > one (or a very small handful of) dedicated guy(s) with a vision of what it > is supposed to be working on it long enough to get the core off the ground. > Once the direction is set and some initial progress is made, others will see > the direction and work with it. I think the "leadership" issue will take care of itself, if someone would just get started on it. But again, as a hobby, I cannot be critical of someone who _wants_ to do a compiler. However, if the goal of this hobby is the OS, then I think that the compiler is just an unnecessary diversion. This could be done -after- the OS is getting somewhere. After all, the compiler may need to be different anyway, if the OS is revolutionary (ie. non POSIX in nature). > > *BSDs and Linux were able to take off because a limited number of people > > with the deep knowledge of OS internals gave to the following layer Just to correct an earlier post : *BSD is the real _UNIX_ from years ago. It just took a while to have ports of it made available to the PC platform, but it is the real UNIX; while Linux is the UNIX-like O/S. The first socket implementation for TCP/IP was on BSD UNIX, for example. While I personally find the UNIX environment quite comforable etc., I still favour someone coming up with an Ada O/S that was _secure_. UNIX was never intended to be secure at the start (although several attempts have been made since to improve this). Perhaps there is some room for some new concepts as well =) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg