Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-27, Alexander Shishkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to continue this conversation more subject-wise, like
> collecting ideas and opinions and with a higher seriousness than that
> of "hey, I'm writing a new operating system, it'll be mostly like
> linux, except for I'm the author" approach that I can possibly call
> for. Thanks for bringing this up.

Yeah, I think it is lame to (seriously) work on clone software with 
just minor tweaking (Yet Another Distro/WM/whatever). Instead one 
should take an entirely new approach, or at least turn a research
project into more practical software. In large scale systems, such
as an entire OS, that does seem to require too long an attention 
span for the modern culture, however. Not that it wouldn't be possible
to get to the desired end result with incremental improvement, but
first one has to be able to define that, to not end up with a 
complete clusterfuck.

Anyway, I'm all for a simple low-level core system (such as an 
exokernel) with capability-based security and various high-level
abstractions on top of it (typed pipes/shells, a decent config 
system abstract to applications, decent decentralised package 
management, vis, etc., just to throw some ideas around).

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Alexander Shishkin]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable)
>  2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
>  2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
>  2016-02-07 - ?
I can't fully blame myself for missing this post in the first place
(being in a hospital and not owning a bluetooth-enabled cellphone),
but it's congratulations nevertheless!
Despite of the disagreements I might have posted against you, I still
think I owe you some beer (not having a chance to meet in person back
a while ago when I used to live in Finland). :)

>  (Well, I doubt there's a semi-usable non-fascist platform left
>  by then. So much does the present state of FOSS and the course
>  it is taking suck. Although, with enough manpower, it might be
>  possible to write a full OS in eight years. So who's signing up?-)
I'm kinda on it for a while now, although not nearly as ready for
anything yet. Still, this post gives me sort of an ass kick, therefore
I'd like to continue this conversation more subject-wise, like
collecting ideas and opinions and with a higher seriousness than that
of "hey, I'm writing a new operating system, it'll be mostly like
linux, except for I'm the author" approach that I can possibly call
for. Thanks for bringing this up.

-- 
wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-27, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could be more fun than sitting in front of the computer and typing
> crap, but the lakes are frozen.. finally.. and yet not well enough
> to be safe for jigging. This "winter" sucks.

(Actually my dictionary is probably wrong -- they often are -- 
claiming "jigging" is  "pilkkiminen", and it's really just 
"ice fishing".)

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-27, Sylvain Abélard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Happy trolling :D

Could be more fun than sitting in front of the computer and typing
crap, but the lakes are frozen.. finally.. and yet not well enough
to be safe for jigging. This "winter" sucks.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-27, Ted Zlatanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everyone knows the next great OS will be written in Javascript :)

I'm not sure how "great" it will be, but very likely it the next
popular OS will be written in broken javascript on top of a stinking
pile of C, C++, shell scripts, python, perl, mono, and other flaky
hacks. Otherwise known as webshit-on-gnomefox-on-linux.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Sylvain Abélard]

>  Everyone knows the next great OS will be written in Javascript :)

The One True OS is just a new name for The One True Editor.
And as everyone knows, it's in Lisp ^^

Happy trolling :D

-- 
Sylvain Abélard
"J'ai décidé d'être heureux, c'est meilleur pour la santé." -Voltaire

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:11:53 + (UTC) Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote: 

TV> C.. and then some.

TV> There's just no way around it: for any serious work you want C.

Everyone knows the next great OS will be written in Javascript :)

Ted

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-08, Evgeny Kurbatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is impossible to avoid the mid-level because in the near
> future there will be a lot of platforms which are differs on a hardware
> level (e.g. mobiles, desktops, computing nets, brain chips etc), and a
> lot of low-level OSes on it.  We need a kind of an API-buffer like .NET
> for portability of a software.  So the point of application of kernel
> development will shift to development of a kernel of that API-buffer, IMHO.

Low-level doesn't mean completely unportable/hardware-level. Just very low
abstraction level, just like C. High level by contrast is very high
abstraction level.

hardware or ultra-low-level 
   = asm / port-poking / "use the source"
low-level  = C / exokernel / decent config files
mid-level  = C++ / linux megamonolith / wimpshit
high-level = Haskell 
 / high level services on top
   of a low-level or mid-level kernel ... or Haskell :)
 / just doing the right thing

Or something like that. Obviously the level depends on the 
perspective.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Evgeny Kurbatov]

> To summarise:
> 
> Return the low-level.
> Remove the mid-level.
> Add the high-level.
> 

I think it is impossible to avoid the mid-level because in the near
future there will be a lot of platforms which are differs on a hardware
level (e.g. mobiles, desktops, computing nets, brain chips etc), and a
lot of low-level OSes on it.  We need a kind of an API-buffer like .NET
for portability of a software.  So the point of application of kernel
development will shift to development of a kernel of that API-buffer, IMHO.

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-08, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> exokernel..

> C.. 

To summarise:

Return the low-level.
Remove the mid-level.
Add the high-level.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Roy Lanek]

> > (Well, I doubt there's a semi-usable non-fascist platform left
> > by then. So much does the present state of FOSS and the course
> > it is taking suck. Although, with enough manpower, it might be
> > possible to write a full OS in eight years. So who's signing up?-)
> 
> 
> Here's an honest question: what language do people think the next operating
> system, the one that Ion users are most likely to write, will be written in? C
> is the default choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something else...

It has been done already--in (significantly) less than eight years, an by
mainly just two people only: Niklaus Wirth and Juerg Gutknecht, from the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Zuerich [ETHZ]. It's the Oberon OS, and
it's written in Oberon [the homonym programming language].

I would prefer Modula-3 ... among the nicest programming languages I know:
based on Modula-2 minus its problematic features, VERY NICE, tiny, yet
POWERFUL, SIMPLE, EFFICIENT and FAST, supporting interfaces, objects,
generics, lightweight threads, isolation of unsafe code, garbage collection,
exceptions and subtyping.

The fact is [I think] that Modula-3 has been a DEC [Digital Equipment] and
Olivetti project, not an ETHZ one, and that Modula-3 has outclassed the
original Oberon by far. [Wirth has not been/is ?! not an easy man.]

So do things go, unfortunately: a gem of a programming language-Modula-3--who
has been unjustly [or maybe actively?] *forgotten* or *marginalized* with the
exception of Canada, perhaps. (As another example, the winner of Ada [83] has
also not been the most promising project.) And a programming language which is
still unsurpassed today, under many perspectives, and *modern*. One galaxy or
two aside, compared with C, in any case. [Python's Guido van Rossum claims to
have been inspired by Modula-3, to let us understand.]

With Ada [tasking, among other things] and Eiffel [design by contract],
both contemporary to Modula-3, the job of truly innovating in the domain of
programming languages has reached its zenith, likely.

Anyway, there are *free* implementations of Modula-3 though.

Then I know that an experimental OS has been written in Ada[83],
and that the OS has been said to be slow. (I would not chose
Ada.)

I would stay away from C++.

Cheers,

/Roy
-- 
S   tak ada rotan, akar pun jadi
S . s l a c k w a r e  SS   no rattans, roots will do [if you are
S + linux  SS   desperate, you must not be choosy]
S

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-07, Bryan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an honest question: what language do people think the next
> operating system, the one that Ion users are most likely to write, will be
> written in? C is the default choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was
> something else...

C.. and then some.

There's just no way around it: for any serious work you want C.
Or maybe some other relatively simple language close to the 
hardware, with better safety... and tagged unions. (What was 
this one C derivative?) But the benefits of such an alternative
(except for tagged unions) are not so great, because you only
want to write relatively simple things in C/it. You don't want
to write much abstractions in C. You do low level gruntwork of 
core libraries in C, provide a very simple API, and use whatever
language you want with better abstractions and better safety 
(hence typically no dynamically-typed scripting languages, but 
rather e.g. Haskell), to access the services provided by the C 
core libraries. This is easy because the API is simple (instead 
of OO bloat).

Non-performance critical libraries could also be written in 
other languages (such as Haskell), and they could provide a
simple C API, but conflicting runtimes present a problem. Many
languages (including Haskell, java, etc.) want to be operating
systems themselves these days. 

Instead of using the operating system's namespace to locate their
libraries, they want to impose their own module and package 
namespaces and hierarchies.

Instead of exposing the operating system's libraries and services,
and letting the program author choose either some real platform 
or a compatibility layer (platform), they want you to use their 
own compatibility layer. Megalomania pure and simple. And in 
exchange cross-language compatibility is reduced. For that you
either you either have to write for the "C runtime" (i.e. the OS),
or you need something like CLR (common language runtime). 

I think the C option could promote better API practises instead
of OO-bloat. You _do_ often want to write higher-level APIs suited
to the practises and mechanisms of any particular language, instead
of enforcing an uniform one. Those exposing a simple easy wrappable
API not dependent on the idiosyncracies of any particular language
or design methodology (such as OO-bloat), should work best.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Bryan Richter]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 06:40:07AM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable) 
> 2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
> 2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
> 2016-02-07 - ?  
> 
> (Well, I doubt there's a semi-usable non-fascist platform left
> by then. So much does the present state of FOSS and the course
> it is taking suck. Although, with enough manpower, it might be
> possible to write a full OS in eight years. So who's signing up?-)


Here's an honest question: what language do people think the next operating
system, the one that Ion users are most likely to write, will be written in? C
is the default choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something else...

I don't have a guess, myself. I have no experience yet. What I would like to
see, however, is a new language designed for the new task of writing a modern
operating system. But even then, what features would this language have?

If only I was wealthy, or could magically procure grants for myself. I'd love to
research these questions.

-- 
Bryan Richter
aka chreekat

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-07, Samuel Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about the other kernel tasks? Just handled by other processes in
> userspace? 

Mostly, yes. Scheduler may need to be in the kernel. Dunno how it
is in existing exokernels, but they do not e.g. include message-
passing as microkernels too. That's handled by user side through
the kernel-provided memory management. File systems are obviously
in user space.. and programs can simply directly allocate disk
pages from the kernel, if they don't care to use a file system 
service. (Over reboots they somehow have to remember their
root pages, however. This is actually related to the orthogonal
persistence of EROS.)

> That'd be very interesting and very cool. Abstraction is
> very very good. I wouldn't imagine writing an OS that wouldn't include
> device abstraction (for drives, at the very least).

Actually, I see the lightweight exokernel as a somewhat of a 
return to the golden age of DOS. Device drivers can be abstracted
as libraries too, when the device doesn't have to be shared, and
any program can use the library. The kernel just takes care that 
no two processes use the device's memory space simultaneously. 
Now, obviously a sound server that mixes multiple streams is a 
useful one, as is a display multiplexer, but you don't particularly
need a specific low-level driver service, but rather drivers within
such much higher level services. Basically a bit like the X server
presently is actually, but hopefully without its reliability 
problems.. (also to consider how to do DRI shit nicely while not
giving any bloated and unreliable program full control of such 
a critical resource).

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Samuel Baldwin]

2008/2/7, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> They have some useful ideas, but the system stinks too much
> of obsolete and unix... and rats.

The stench most of us live in. But very true.

> Everything's a file... great, but could we move past text files
> with a proprietary syntax, and having to parse them with quick
> and dirty hacks? How about a more efficient standard structural
> _binary_ format? For all the pipes too? And the shell, kind of
> like Microsoft PowerShell, but better? (Instead of piping objects
> with a display routine among other things, piping structural data
> with specified stylesheet for display kind of like XML files, but
> without the inefficient text encoding of XML.)

A very interesting idea.. Can't say I've touched powershell. I think
idea of a XML like stylesheet for output is a good one. I'd be very
interesting to see this shell.

> As for the kernel... how about an exokernel? (Or at least what
> I've understood it to be: basically the kernel provides only
> memory management, with disk pages handled analoguously like
> memory pages, abstracting away the actual devices. Even a lot
> of the memory management is on user-side, with the kernel just
> verifying claims, or so.) As for security, how about an object
> capability system (see: EROS, Coytos, CapROS) in user space
> outside the exokernel?

What about the other kernel tasks? Just handled by other processes in
userspace? That'd be very interesting and very cool. Abstraction is
very very good. I wouldn't imagine writing an OS that wouldn't include
device abstraction (for drives, at the very least).

> And the user interface beyond the command line? Vis.

Of course we'd probably need much better user input devices. Something
like a dataglove would be fantastic.

> And so on. I have and there must be more ideas along similar
> lines, and if one really started spending time thinking about
> it and unifying them, one might be able to come up with a
> very nice, clean and flexible design, intead of a random
> clusterfuck.

Well, you can't NOT have a random clusterfuck with most OSS shit. (/me
points at PHP).  Not that I don't like OSS, actually, but still.

-- 
Samuel 'Shardz' Baldwin
Shardz's Igloo: shardz.homelinux.net // Down at the moment
Registered GNU/Linux User #410639

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-07, Samuel Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I say we start with Plan 9 From Bell Labs and work from there.

They have some useful ideas, but the system stinks too much
of obsolete and unix... and rats.

Everything's a file... great, but could we move past text files
with a proprietary syntax, and having to parse them with quick
and dirty hacks? How about a more efficient standard structural
_binary_ format? For all the pipes too? And the shell, kind of 
like Microsoft PowerShell, but better? (Instead of piping objects
with a display routine among other things, piping structural data
with specified stylesheet for display kind of like XML files, but
without the inefficient text encoding of XML.)

As for the kernel... how about an exokernel? (Or at least what
I've understood it to be: basically the kernel provides only 
memory management, with disk pages handled analoguously like 
memory pages, abstracting away the actual devices. Even a lot
of the memory management is on user-side, with the kernel just
verifying claims, or so.) As for security, how about an object
capability system (see: EROS, Coytos, CapROS) in user space 
outside the exokernel? 

And the user interface beyond the command line? Vis. 

And so on. I have and there must be more ideas along similar 
lines, and if one really started spending time thinking about 
it and unifying them, one might be able to come up with a 
very nice, clean and flexible design, intead of a random 
clusterfuck.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Samuel Baldwin]

2008/2/7, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (Well, I doubt there's a semi-usable non-fascist platform left
> by then. So much does the present state of FOSS and the course
> it is taking suck. Although, with enough manpower, it might be
> possible to write a full OS in eight years. So who's signing up?-)

I say we start with Plan 9 From Bell Labs and work from there.


-- 
Samuel 'Shardz' Baldwin
Shardz's Igloo: shardz.homelinux.net // Down at the moment
Registered GNU/Linux User #410639

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-07, Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, to use wikipedia.org on geopolitics in general, and on the former
> Soviet Union in particular, is like to use the Vatican as reference for
> telling on ...?! the 'position of the lotus'; Microsoft on Ion; and Wander
> [Switzerland] of the chocolate beverage Ovomaltine on the Russian vodka
> Stolichnaya.

Trusting the actual content of wikipedia... *shudder*. But there's 
some hope that they can get the date of an actual event correct. 
(At least the Wikipedia pages on those subjects agreed with the 
February_7 listing, which is better than things often are.)

> Moreover: good luck--but hey: good riddance--to call the *creation* of the EU
> [perhaps incorporated Europe?] the "birth of an empire."

Much lesser things are called empires.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Roy Lanek]

> >> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable) 
> >> 2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
> >> 2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
> >> 2016-02-07 - ?  
> >
> > Well-well, Euler aside it's entertaining to see that this stable release of
> > Ion occurs simultaneously with the begin of the year of the ... rat [mouse] 
> > :)
> 
> Other coincidences include the death of one empire and the birth of
> another 
> 
> 1990-02-07 - Collapse of the Soviet Union: The Central Committee of the Soviet
>  Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power.
> 
> 1992-02-07 - The Maastricht Treaty is signed, leading to the creation of the
>  European Union.
>

It's not the same kind of coincidences. The Chinese new year doesn't occur at
the same date modulo one year ... examples:

 Chinese new year dates


 2005 - Feb. 9 
 2006 - Jan. 29
 2007 - Feb. 18
 2008 - Feb. 7 
 2009 - Jan. 26
 2010 - Feb. 14
 2011 - Feb. 3 
 2012 - Jan. 23

while on both 1990-02-07 and 1992-02-07 there was no Ion yet.

By the way, to use wikipedia.org on geopolitics in general, and on the former
Soviet Union in particular, is like to use the Vatican as reference for
telling on ...?! the 'position of the lotus'; Microsoft on Ion; and Wander
[Switzerland] of the chocolate beverage Ovomaltine on the Russian vodka
Stolichnaya.

Moreover: good luck--but hey: good riddance--to call the *creation* of the EU
[perhaps incorporated Europe?] the "birth of an empire."

Cheers,

/Roy
-- 
S   anjing menggonggong, kafilah tetap berlalu
S . s l a c k w a r e  SS   the dogs are barking, the caravan moves on
S + linux  SS   [illustrates useless protest, critic, or
S   sarcasm]

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2008-02-07, Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable) 
>> 2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
>> 2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
>> 2016-02-07 - ?  
>
> Well-well, Euler aside it's entertaining to see that this stable release of
> Ion occurs simultaneously with the begin of the year of the ... rat [mouse] :)

Other coincidences include the death of one empire and the birth of
another 

1990-02-07 - Collapse of the Soviet Union: The Central Committee of the Soviet
 Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power.

1992-02-07 - The Maastricht Treaty is signed, leading to the creation of the
 European Union.

-- 
Tuomo

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Jorge Gajon]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable)
>  2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
>  2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
>  2016-02-07 - ?
>
>  (Well, I doubt there's a semi-usable non-fascist platform left
>  by then. So much does the present state of FOSS and the course
>  it is taking suck. Although, with enough manpower, it might be
>  possible to write a full OS in eight years. So who's signing up?-)
>

Thank you Tuomo,

I've just finished compiling and installing the stable release and
nothing broke ;)

I'll wait patiently for the 2016 release. Thanks again.

Regards,
- Jorge

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Roy Lanek]

> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable) 
> 2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
> 2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
> 2016-02-07 - ?  

Well-well, Euler aside it's entertaining to see that this stable release of
Ion occurs simultaneously with the begin of the year of the ... rat [mouse] :)

See the Lunar Chinese Calendar.

Cheers,

/Roy
-- 
S
S . s l a c k w a r e  SS   air tenang menghanyutkan
S + linux  SSstill water runs deep
S 

Re: 2.7 (=~e)

[Ivan Vilata i Balaguer]

Tuomo Valkonen (el 2008-02-07 a les 06:40:07 +) va dir::

> 2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable) 
> 2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
> 2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
> 2016-02-07 - ?  

What can I say... congratulations! :)

::

  Ivan Vilata i Balaguer   @ Welcome to the European Banana Republic! @
  http://www.selidor.net/  @ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/@


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

2.7 (=~e)

[Tuomo Valkonen]

2002-02-07 - Last release of Ion1 (it never had ds/rc/stable) 
2004-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion2
2008-02-07 - First "stable" release of Ion3
2016-02-07 - ?  

(Well, I doubt there's a semi-usable non-fascist platform left
by then. So much does the present state of FOSS and the course
it is taking suck. Although, with enough manpower, it might be
possible to write a full OS in eight years. So who's signing up?-)

-- 
Tuomo