Re: Open source Ada OS?

[anon@att.net]

In <ihsbfb$d4k$1@online.de>, Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de> writes:
>anon@att.net wrote:
>
>> Most open OS that use CVS/SVN/GIT are based on BSD or LINUX or the AT&T
>> old OS system.
>
>RTEMS, Haiku, Marte, Lovelace, Hurd? Based on Linux? Based on BSD? I guess 
>not.

First, there are 100s of openSource OS. A lot of them just store the source 
code in archived files such as zip or tar (gz or bz2) or etc.  

Even closed source like Apple's OSX is directly based on BSD since Apple's 
Steve Job help create the openSource version of BSD and Apple admits that 
OSX is directly linked to BSD. Which also means that OSX is direcly based 
on AT&T old OS from 1969. 

Linus Torvalds wrote Linux ( L plus an anagram of the true name of AT&T 
old OS that I nolonger use) to be a alternative to the high priced AT&T 
old OS with all of the features of AT&T old OS. And any OS that uses
Posix, System V Api or other programs that was develope for an OS version 
that is based on BSD or AT&T old OS is directly or indirecly linked to 
BSD and AT&T old OS.


RTEMS    -- Includes supports for Posix and BSD sockets and 
            GNU based toolset GCC C and GNAT.

MaRTE    -- requires Linux and/or Bare-bones system. Plus, has Posix 
            built-in and its storage online as a compressed tar. 
            Note: the current version 1.9 requires Ada GPL 2009 they 
            are working on the version for Ada GPL 2010.

Hurd     -- Is still stored at GNU archives under CVS
            Plus, the GNU (GNU OS) states that its is based on the 
            AT&T old OS.

Lovelace -- Lovelace is not an OS, its just a frontend to the L4 kernel just 
            like Windows pre 95 was for DOS back in the 1980s and early 
            1990s. Back then Windows was just a GUI shell application on 
            top of DOS with all of the problems associated with the 
            limitations of DOS. Plus, this shell was written in GNAT Ada.

            Actually, the first version Lovelace was promising, but 
            the current stored version is not that promising.

Haiku     -- don't get started with this one.  Plus as I said 
             "Most OS".




>
>> And before complaining about Ada OSs, remember Linux is a single file
>> and to obtain its source, one must download a single archived file. Linux
>> does not use CVS/SVN/GIT.
>
>No, of course Linus has created GIT just to proove he can do it.

Torvalds may have create GIT. but when one downloads the Linux kernel 
one downloads the compress tar file.  That saves traffic because at 
the movement the current compress source kernel is around 50 MB and 
uncompress it could be 100 .. 200 MB worth of files to be downloaded. 

Plus, except for Linux distro maintainers most people do not download 
each updated copy of the Linux kernel. Most may install two or three 
kernel within the life of the hardware to many changes to the kernel 
for a simple patch it better just to download the complete current 
stable file.





>
>> As for MaTRE/Openravencar/RTERM are OS for Real_Time applications with
>> usage of Posix design.
>
>s/RTERM/RTEMS/, right?
>
>> And all three of these OS have some of the build-in
>> libraries written in C based on the Utah OSKIT. So, these OSs may share
>> the design concept of openSource but they do not care to spend their time
>> in maintaining a source tree as other openSource OS do. Because when a
>> maintainer changes one line in a source file to fix a bug it may cause
>> changes in 100s of other files. So to maintain the correctness of the OS
>> it is better bundle the source files into a single archived file and this
>> process decreases the maintaining and download time as well as traffic
>> cost.
>
>How does downloading a big archive containing everything reduce download 
>times compared to only downloading only the changed files (svn up)?


If time is allocated it is better to download a tested archive then 
download a few files that might not be fully tested at all.

The second way is just to download a set of patch files and apply each 
patch to your copy to bring that copy to the current version. 

Example of a problem is when ever a package decides to update its license 
from GPL 2 to 3 all of the files were updated just to changing all GPL 
version character '2' to '3', which caused all Version Control Systems to 
force complete downloads of all files.  A better concept would be add the  
GPL version 3 license to the file tree and have all files state when 
they are created "that this file is under the latest version of the GPL". 
That would allow only those files that required updating to be downloaded 
plus a copy of the new license.

And downloading a single compressed file is faster and uses less traffic than 
downloading each file. Also, it shows the maintainers that you are aware that 
they are paying for you to have the right to obtain the files freely even if they 
change the license which changes the access and may be usage of every file 
dwnloaded.











>
>> And not all of the openSource OS are GCC version 2 or 3 some have modified
>> GCC or modified BSD or even their own license that may require the person
>> downloading to accept the license before downloading.
>
>s/GCC/GPL/g, right?
>
>Bye...
>
>	Dirk