Re: Open source Ada OS?

[Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@altum.de>]

anon@att.net wrote:

> 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.

No, they don't. They _provide_ tarballs of their releases to users, but they 
_store_ their sources in a VCS. Otherwise, development would be impossible.

> 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.

Yes, so what?

> 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.

No, it's not "based on", it's "a clone of". That's a big difference. This is 
an Ada group, so consider the the following example: Let's say you have a 
spec for a "Stacks" package. Now, how do you implement your stack, as an 
array or as a linked list? It doesn't matter as long as both comply to the 
spec. The same is true for POSIX or any other API. There can be different, 
independent implementations.

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

Yes, so what? It even reuses the FreeBSD network stack. That still doesn't 
make it a derivative of Unix. It's concepts are fundamentally different.

> MaRTE    -- requires Linux and/or Bare-bones system. Plus, has Posix
>             built-in and its storage online as a compressed tar.

Yes, so what. Linux makes a great host environment for doing development for 
embedded, real time OS. That doen't make the target OS a derivative of it. 
And, as before, they _provide_ their releases as tarballs, but they're doing 
their development in some VCS (although they seem to keep that closed).

> 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.

The Hurd's concepts are way too different from that of Unix to be a 
derivative of it and the GNU project NOWHERE states this. They say it shall 
be a Unix replacement, which is, again, a big difference.

> 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.

An OS is more than just the kernel. While you could use DOS without Windows 
back then, you can't use L4 alone. The same is true for DOS itself. What you 
call DOS is a kernel plus a set of fundamental applications. In that sense, 
Lovelace IS an OS.

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

But except for MacOS X, every OS you cited is exactly NOT based on Unix.

>>> 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.

It's not "one" downloads the compressed tar file, but rather "you" do this. 
Just because you do it doesn't mean others do it, too. I use git, but that 
doesn't make me go around and tell the world "Hey, everyone uses git to 
download Linux kernel sources.".

> 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.

You seem to think VCS's don't compress their traffic (at least CVS does). 
Even if they don't, as said before: From one release to the next, they only 
download what has been changed, which is usually far less than 50M.

> 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.

Those people most likely do not download the sources at all, they just 
install the precompiled kernel of their distribution, which usually is well 
below 10M.

Bye...

	Dirk