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: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-17 17:25:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: James Ross Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Operating System Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:25:09 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <99da9u0909rsblfdcc1ru7jd2r9q461qhk@4ax.com> References: <3c77b476.322111671@news.cis.dfn.de> <3C88E0D1.89161C16@despammed.com> <3C9514DD.9CF1F84A@san.rr.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21387 Date: 2002-03-17T19:25:09-06:00 List-Id: On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:12:58 GMT, Darren New wrote: >> The API's for >> this would force a consistent method so there would no guessing where >> *anything* was when it was time to back things up, upgrade, wipe it >> clean, etc... > >Windows already has this, as has UNIX. I might be behind on the latest MS API's, but I am sure there is nothing there that imposes the kind of thing I am suggesting. For any version of windows, including XP, and for any version of UNIX out there, there is nothing in the OS to keep a user and/or program from writing files anywhere and everywhere except for user permissions. For example: as an administrator I can just delete the GNAT\bin folder without going through a proper uninstall. Or I can move its entire contents to WINDOWS\system32 folder if I want. I can install EditPlus inside either folder. Sure, sounds like bizarre things to do -- but the OS should not allow it regardless what reason I might have for doing it. These sort of restrictions would, in my opinion, go a long way to making an OS more stable / secure / and easy to maintain. >The only way to make this work is to get it perfect the first >time Isn't this the "Ada Way"? Make sure your interfaces ( aka .ads's) are near perfect to begin with... then design and redesign the rest down the road. As difficult, or impossible that might be, that would be the goal! Of course were talking about a full fledged OS with a new native file system (that I suggest be based on relational database model) and we don't even have a kernel yet :) Just pie in the sky thinking?! JR