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: 2001-08-24 09:32:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!coop.net!newsfeed1.global.lmco.com!svlnews.lmms.lmco.com!news1.lmtas.lmco.com!not-for-mail From: Gary Scott Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Progress on AdaOS Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:25:08 -0500 Organization: LM Aeronautics Message-ID: <3B867FE4.F4C7A687@lmtas.lmco.com> References: <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> <3B82789B.8D195045@home.com> <9ltuo8$70n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B829450.879B0396@home.com> <9m0d08$51j$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B83DE1A.7770DC9C@home.com> <9m0rc6$ak0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B83F894.D7082F9A@home.com> <9m12li$db7$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9m1u2m$baq2@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9m3ifu$bri$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9m494u$9ic1@news.cis.okstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: CAA261517.lmtas.lmco.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; LMTAS} (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12385 Date: 2001-08-24T11:25:08-05:00 List-Id: Hi, One of my concerns with any new open-source OS is that the vast majority of those working on such an OS would very likely have very limited exposure to a variety of systems (we don't need another unix clone). Key to making an OS that I would be inclined to use would be a thorough study/evaluation of past and present OS' such as VMS, VOS, VM, MVS, RTOS, etc. (showing my own limited exposure) and integrating that information into a consistent specification up front. Simply going off half cocked and reinventing the wheel isn't usually the best approach...learn from history. There have been a plethora of good multi and single user OS' in the past that should be well understood for their advantages and disadvantages before proceeding. Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <9m494u$9ic1@news.cis.okstate.edu>, David Starner says... > > > >And what idiot is going to put their financial future on the line over > >AdaOS? Whoever that idiot is, they're going to be starving quickly; > >at best, it'll take 5 years for AdaOS to become profitable, assuming they > > That's a particuarly worthy point. There might be a few people here who would be > willing to use a new OS just because it was written in Ada, but 5 users does not > a success make. For just about anyone else, there are a lot more important > considerations in their choice of OS, like what applications it runs, how nice > the presentation is, how reliable it is, etc. > > Some may claim the the Ada OS will of course be more reliable, but remember that > the coding language is only one factor that goes into reliability. There's also > things like quality of the design, how its implemented, how well tested it is > (which is primiarily a function of *use*). An Ada OS may eventually grow to > become more secure and reliable, all other things being equal. But all other > things will *never* be equal. > > --- > T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html > home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com