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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 2001-08-24 16:22:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!newsfeed.ksu.edu!nntp.ksu.edu!news.okstate.edu!not-for-mail From: David Starner Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Progress on AdaOS Date: 24 Aug 2001 22:01:47 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University Message-ID: <9m6isb$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu> 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> <3B867FE4.F4C7A687@lmtas.lmco.com> Reply-To: dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org NNTP-Posting-Host: x8b4e5129.dhcp.okstate.edu User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12401 Date: 2001-08-24T22:01:47+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:25:08 -0500, Gary Scott wrote: > 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. It depends on your goal. If your goal is to be able to replace the kernel of a Linux/*BSD system with a kernel written in Ada and leave pretty much everything else the same (the same way you can interchange the Linux, *BSD and SCO kernels), then you don't need to study a whole bunch of systems. (I personally find that an interesting and possibly useful goal.) If your goal is to produce a research OS, demonsrating the start of the art in operating systems and beta/alpha testing all sorts of experimental features, then of course you need to study all sorts of operating systems. If your goal is to produce a new operating system for the general public, then making major visible changes is a bad idea, unless there are huge associated improvements. I use Blackbox under X under Linux; I find Windows and MacOS and even other X enviroments sometimes annoying, since they don't react the way I expect. An OS that differed massively from Unix and Windows probably wouldn't be worth the time for me to wrap my mind around, unless I was just in the mood to play with a new OS. (The general public is _never_ in the mood to play with a new OS.) (For an analogy, would you buy a car where you steered with your feet? Even if the salesman had dozens of studies from reputable studies showing that people who had never driven before or had spent four months training on the new car drove so much better with it?) Dvorak, Shavian and Deseret (two phonetic alphabets for English) all failed due to this effect. People don't like to make major changes for relatively minor improvements. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg