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: 2001-09-07 08:08:06 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: Re: Ada OS talk (was: Progress on AdaOS) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:24:04 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9nala6$p3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9n2jcd$b50$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9n3h11$9ic1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9n7vfh$nq6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9n8o51$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 999872646 803 136.170.200.133 (7 Sep 2001 14:24:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 2001 14:24:06 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:12899 Date: 2001-09-07T14:24:06+00:00 List-Id: Well, think about it for a minute. If the initial objective is simply to get something up and running and you've gone to the effort of building some micro kernel & scheduler, then about all you need (initially) is some ability to cause a program to be loaded from some source. You have not even really got to the point where you have developed any serious device drivers - just got code cycling in a box - so you're not concerned with being able to run a sophisticated database app or anything like that yet. You could dummy-up just enough of a file loader (hiden behind a package spec) so that down the road, if you build your own file system (or interface to NTFS, Unix, VMS, or anything else for that matter) you aren't in some sort of major revision mode on your little core OS. To design and build a full-blown file system is a *big* job. Just look at everything that is in NTFS. Not to mention the fact that as is obvious here, there are dozens of competing and incompatible strategies for designing one. If you set as an objective getting a file system in place before releasing anything, I admire the ambition, but I think it would cause the project to languish. Obviously, you can go off and build anything you please and I'd be the last one on the planet to try to stop you. I just think that it is too ambitious for a first cut. My idea for "Phase One" would be to build just enough of an OS to be able to boot it from a floppy & have a scheduler capable of loading some pure-machine-code programs and have those programs up and cycling. You need that much at minimum in order to accomplish anything else. You get the added advantage that this much of an OS could be useful in embedded applications where you have no file system, etc. Having a piece that big allows you to hammer out the kernel and scheduling to get something that would make a solid base for everything else. But if you want to go write a file system - go right ahead. 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/ "David Starner" wrote in message news:9n8o51$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu... > > Why would writing the code for some existing file system and the code to > make that system look like you want be any easier then writing some > simple file system that actually fits what you're trying to do? >