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: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-15 08:23:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!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 Operating System Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:43:30 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3c77b476.322111671@news.cis.dfn.de> <3C88E0D1.89161C16@despammed.com> <3C90C94D.E8BB96F2@icn.siemens.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1016127812 3727 136.170.200.133 (14 Mar 2002 17:43:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Mar 2002 17:43:32 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:21293 Date: 2002-03-14T17:43:32+00:00 List-Id: "Alfred Hilscher" wrote in message news:3C90C94D.E8BB96F2@icn.siemens.de... > Marin David Condic wrote: > > > > Rewriting the Linux kernel in Ada doesn't give anybody anything they don't > > already have. Why would they glom onto an Ada OS that was identical to a C > > OS if the C OS is more widespread, more mature, more supported, more > > developed-for, more understood, etc. etc. etc. etc.? > > So choose OS/2 instead. It's not "widespread" ;-) > Well...., yeah, but its still going off and doing something that's already been done before & I just don't see that creating a big incentive to want to use *your* product versus using *IBM's* product. It might not be bad to look at OS/2 and try to model what it does (or some of what it does) - but you still need to break new ground in some way or its just the same old thing in a different wrapper. > > Ada. It also has to offer the computing world *something* it doesn't > > otherwise get by using someone else's product or there will be near-zero > > reasons to use it. > > Support. And a perspective to be continued. O.K. If, for example, you were a die-hard OS/2 fan, you might conceivably want an OS/2 clone only with available support. But a) there aren't that many OS/2 fans relative to other operating systems, b) OS/2 *users* (as opposed to fans) who were desparate for support would likely switch to some other OS for which they could already get it c) duplicating something that has already failed to capture a huge chunk of the market seems like throwing good money after bad. If you're going to clone something - clone a *winner*. :-) My position would be that if an Ada OS is going to be built, it ought to break some fundamental new ground and somehow or other be "different" from the crowd or there wouldn't be a significant enough reason for people to go after it. 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/