In article <dmvi84$1oji$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hytak says...
>
>I agree too, moreover, I heard good comments about BeOS although I never tried it.

Never used it either, but I too heard they had a pretty good architecture. And since they were targeting multimedia stuff, I assume it was pretty fast too.

Tommie Gannert wrote:
> In article <dmvd4v$1j0o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...
> 
>>In article <dmuv6o$15nu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hytak says...
>>
>>>The fact is, there is many people interested in OS development in D and it would
>>>be good that all of them decide to discuss at the same place.
>>>
>>
>>While ye sleep - I make magic happen.. OK, it's not magic.. But here is a
>>start...
>>
>>If you want to join in on designing the Titan kernel with us... (me so far) than
>>come and visit, register, post, etc..
>>
> 
> 
> Hm. Sorry, guys, DOS already exist. It was written long before D? Oh, okay... ;)
> 
> Just want to ask you not to fall into the POSIX swamp. Build an object oriented
> OS, as D's paradigm is OOP. Look at BeOS, look at WinNT, but please, please
> don't use POSIX or Unix as the foundation. POSIX is old and hopefully dying.
> 
> 

What is so bad about POSIX and *nix in general?

Tommie Gannert wrote:
> In article <dmvd4v$1j0o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...
>> In article <dmuv6o$15nu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hytak says...
>>> The fact is, there is many people interested in OS development in D and it would
>>> be good that all of them decide to discuss at the same place.
>>>
>> While ye sleep - I make magic happen.. OK, it's not magic.. But here is a
>> start...
>>
>> If you want to join in on designing the Titan kernel with us... (me so far) than
>> come and visit, register, post, etc..
>>
> 
> Hm. Sorry, guys, DOS already exist. It was written long before D? Oh, okay... ;)
> 
> Just want to ask you not to fall into the POSIX swamp. Build an object oriented
> OS, as D's paradigm is OOP. Look at BeOS, look at WinNT, but please, please
> don't use POSIX or Unix as the foundation. POSIX is old and hopefully dying.
> 
> 

And I'd say...

Please don't fall into the win32 swamp!  Please, please don't use WinNT as your foundation!!!!

-JJR

>
>And I'd say...
>
>Please don't fall into the win32 swamp!  Please, please don't use WinNT as your foundation!!!!
>
>-JJR

Ahahah you can be sure that even if it would be possible to do that I would not participate in that project hehe.


>In article <dmvi84$1oji$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hytak says...
>
>I agree too, moreover, I heard good comments about BeOS although I never tried it.

>Never used it either, but I too heard they had a pretty good architecture. And since they were targeting multimedia stuff, I assume it was pretty fast too.

I heard that it was booting in less than 10 seconds on a pentium 2, and I guess it was fast too. Haiku-os is a project by BeOS fans to make an open-source revival of BeOS... http://haiku-os.org/learn.php ... I don't know if it is as good than the original one.

In article <dmvle2$1rq4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>And I'd say...
>
>Please don't fall into the win32 swamp!  Please, please don't use WinNT as your foundation!!!!
>

But at least WinNT is based on objects... Of course, they made some dumb decisions on accessing them, but in theory it's nice.


On the POSIX subject (another post). There is essentially nothing wrong in POSIX. It suits it's purpose. But first of all it has backwards support ranging back to the sixties...

Signals are just a poor substitute for threads and IPC (it could have been nice, but they screwed up because they lacked the notion of thread-safeness back then).

And, IMHO, there is no worse socket programming than POSIX C (taken from BSD). select() is nice once you get used to it, but it doesn't beat the WaitForMultipleObjects() of WinNT. Unfortunately the only thing in WinNT that is from POSIX seems to be sockets programming, so it fails on something else there. Doing sockets in Java is simply a dream come true...

In general POSIX is just not object oriented, a property I find annoying in the world of C++ and D. How many times have you not spend a day or two just creating OO wrappers of something just because it's not already an object. GTK pops up as a nice non-POSIX example (not to say that I wrote GTKmm, but someone obviously had to spend a couple of days to do it).

I could go on forever but it boils down to "using the right standard at the right place".

POSIX <-> C, BASIC, PASCAL, Assembly.
??? <-> Java, C++, Smalltalk, D.

To my knowledge there are no working open source (i.e. standardizable, no meaning in standardizing something which only has one implementation, is it?) object oriented OS yet. So the first one to create it will probably be a platform for the rest. There are lots of attempts around the Internet, but none seems operational at the moment.

Finally, some constructive comments. ;)
There is a project called TriOS i found a minute ago. They seem to have the some
nice ideas. (Skipping a normal file system, replacing it with a persistent
object storage, for one.) In the end people will objectify everything anyway, so
it might as well be there from the start.

Sorry for the long, indeed purely subjective and probably partially erronous, post.

/Tommie

"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dmvh82$1nia$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Tommie Gannert wrote:
>> In article <dmvd4v$1j0o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...
>>
>>>In article <dmuv6o$15nu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Hytak says...
>>>
>>>>The fact is, there is many people interested in OS development in D and
>>>>it would
>>>>be good that all of them decide to discuss at the same place.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While ye sleep - I make magic happen.. OK, it's not magic.. But here is a start...
>>>
>>>If you want to join in on designing the Titan kernel with us... (me so
>>>far) than
>>>come and visit, register, post, etc..
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hm. Sorry, guys, DOS already exist. It was written long before D? Oh, okay... ;)
>>
>> Just want to ask you not to fall into the POSIX swamp. Build an object
>> oriented
>> OS, as D's paradigm is OOP. Look at BeOS, look at WinNT, but please,
>> please
>> don't use POSIX or Unix as the foundation. POSIX is old and hopefully
>> dying.
>>
>>
>
> Good point, I second that!
> I'm sick of unix/linux, actually I have a prejudice against linux.
I find linux to be great for all kinds of low-level experimentation work, but I can't actually see myself having fun or doing anything productive with a unix-like system; it's an OS written for programmers, thus doesn't care about usability as much as the number of cool hacks you can do with it.

I really don't have very many ideas regarding the OS. I am just trying to be realistic about all of this recent ambition of creating an OS in D. one of the big problems with making a new OS is compatibility. If you want your OS to be suitable for typical PC users (I gather this is the intent of "Apollo") then it would need to be compatible with existing software (including drivers, with little modification). Realistically, you can't create new software that does everything (or even close) you can do in Windows or Linux.
Also, you have to generate a huge amount of interest in your OS to get people to donate their time to your cause. I *really* don't want to discourage innovation. I just want to make sure it isn't misplaced. But if you have enough passion for creating this, it can definately work. SkyOS comes to mind.

Chris

> Chris says...
> 
>> *snip*
>> This is just my opinion, but I don't think Trevor (the guy doing the
>> OS on
>> dsource) has the right idea either.
>> *snip*
> I would love to hear more about your ideas - and would like to assure
> you that my mind has yet to be set in stone on any particular
> direction - so you input would be very influential. Start a topic on
> the forum or email me...
> 
> In other news - I have been incapacitatingly busy... I finnaly got a
> chance to breathe - and than I couldn't breathe cause I got a head
> cold. Now I am healthy and I have some free time, hopefully I can get
> some cool stuff done on Terra and Titan.
> 
> Thanks,
> Trevor Parscal

Tommie Gannert wrote:
> In article <dmvle2$1rq4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>> And I'd say...
>>
>> Please don't fall into the win32 swamp!  Please, please don't use WinNT as your foundation!!!!
>>
> 
> But at least WinNT is based on objects... Of course, they made some dumb
> decisions on accessing them, but in theory it's nice.
> 

It's amazing how many things are considered "nice" in theory.  But in actual fact, The windows internals and API are a mess, objects or not (in fact, windows is far from the only example of a OO API/GUI/OS -- I think it's an ugly one, at that).  It's popularity is more due to its prevalence than anything else.  Programmer's use what they have to use... C++ being similar example.

I think following that example is not a good place to start.  There are certainly better examples to follow.  If anything, Windows can certainly teach you what NOT to do! ;-)

But, that's just my opinion. :-D

-JJR

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:08:57 -0800, John Reimer wrote:

> There are certainly better examples to follow.

May I suggest that some good things were done in the design of AmigaDOS, and that it wouldn't be wasted time having a look at that for additional inspiration.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"A learning experience is one of those things that says,
 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'" - D.N. Adams
5/12/2005 10:14:59 AM

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:08:57 -0800, John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> There are certainly better examples to follow.
> 
> May I suggest that some good things were done in the design of AmigaDOS,
> and that it wouldn't be wasted time having a look at that for additional
> inspiration.
> 

The Amiga OS was certainly ahead of it's time, many moons ago.

One thing I liked about it over Windows-based PC's was the use of proper names for devices.  I can't believe we're still using the nasty A:, B:, and C: nomenclature for drive devices within the Windows world (as inherited from its ancient DOS roots).

Unix, for all it's copious administration complexity, certainly had consistency to it's credit: its "everything-is-a-file" mentality makes for a "clean" and logical system.

If similar, yet original, ideas could be carried over to a new D-based OS, that would be great.

-JJR