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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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: 2001-08-16 14:49:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Progress on AdaOS (Was: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack.) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:37:50 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9lhefg$lgd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com> <9l6pdo$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> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997997872 22029 136.170.200.133 (16 Aug 2001 21:37:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2001 21:37:52 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12018 Date: 2001-08-16T21:37:52+00:00 List-Id: Presuming for a minute that the initial target will be some popular platform like a PC and you have some ability to come up with an Ada compiler capable of targeting a bare-board 80x86 processor, then I'd strongly suggest that as an initial route. Don't start reinventing the wheel - go build something that isn't already built - namely an OS - which is, after all, the stated goal. If some progress were shown on that front, you might even find more volunteers to work on it because they'd have a new "toy" to play with. Who needs yet another Ada compiler to play with? Long term, I can understand the reasons for wanting an Ada compiler to go with the AdaOS - but that could be a secondary, parallel effort. Get some part of an OS that might be usable in some realm and then you've got something unique to show for your efforts. Clearly, if there were some R&D money available for this, it might actually speed things along. Don't know if maybe there is an SBIR proposal or some other sort of research grant money that might be had - but if it paid a few bucks to generate some results, chances are you'd see more results. It might even help speed development if the ultimate license for the thing offered some chance of financial reward to the developers - but I've hawked that issue before. (Money now or money later might have a way of speeding things up a bit.) I won't be critical of volunteers who may not find enough incentive there to really push the issue and get something done in what I'd consider a timely manner. However, I'd suggest that we don't hold this up as an example of how Ada can be used to develop an OS - especially in posts to other newsgroups. Instead, refer to RTEMS and other real-time efforts that have been done in Ada. If somewhere along the line, the AdaOS website posts some code, then it might be fair to refer others to that site as an example. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote in message news:3B7C3293.76F49097@home.com... > > The problem in a nutshell seems to be the idea that they need to build their > own Ada compiler first, which I see as an extremely ambitious plan. It seems > to make more sense to adapt (if necessary) the existing GNAT compiler, and then > get on with the actual OS code. If we wait for the compiler to be built, then > I think things will remain the "debating society" that it seems to be. > > I'm not criticizing anyone that wants to take on such a project (as a hobby), > but it seems to me that the scope of it almost guarantees that it won't > get done. It would be better to build some parts of the OS, and do the compiler > later, if the compiler is that important, IMHO.