Re: [jos-general] new to jos

[Iain S. <iai...@ya...>]

On Friday, August 24, 2001, at 10:12 AM, Gilbert Carl Herschberger II 
wrote:

> At 10:31 AM 8/24/01 -0400, John Morrison <jm...@ma...> wrote:
>
> May cooler heads prevail.
>
>> There is truth in this.  To the best of my knowledge, you can't run any
>> really interesting Java applications on JOS (although I am most
>> certainly interested in the case being otherwise).  Restated slightly,
>> "nothing" in JOS is capable of running interesting Java applications.
>
> Let's see. If you don't count all of the Java applications I find
> interesting-- applications running in production corporate
> environments--and work in a transitional build of JOS, you might be 
> right.
> Linux, OS/400 and Windows--heavily optimized for Java--doesn't seem to
> count around here as a Java-based operating system. Hmm. It is more of a
> Java-oriented operating system.

I believe that is true.  If (Windows + JVM == jos) then I don't see much 
point in the JOS project.  We already have it and there is limited 
usefulness in JOS.  OTOH, I think if you can make an OS primarily 
targeted at Java at its most fundamental level, then we don't have it 
yet, and JOS could be that system.

<random thoughts>
In that vein, it seems to me that the following toolchain is not going 
to really lead is to the right place:

assembly + C/C++ + Java

Because (assembly + C + file system) is almost assuredly going to lead 
us to Unix or something very similar (mach, hurd, etc).

and ((assembly + C + file system == unix) + Java) is already here (Mac 
OS X) making JOS irrelevant.  <gushing>BTW, the latest developer preview 
of the next generation JVM on Mac OS X (1.3.1 compatible) includes 
hardware implementations of AWT/Swing that is just incredible...  IMHO, 
if you're a hard core Java person, you really owe it to yourself to at 
least take Mac OS X for a test drive if not switch to it as a dev 
platform.  Java on Mac OS X is just unbelievable.</gushing>

So, long term, I think we really need to be thinking of:

(assembly + Java) || (assembly + Java System Version + Java Standard)

The first option using some class file compiler that can turn normal 
Java classes into native system code that can replace C functionality 
(ala ajile's post-processor JEM Builder that takes empty stub classes 
and substitutes the necessary system level methods that would be the 
equivalent of C's direct bit banging functionality).  This is a really 
nice option as you could then use standard javac on any platform 
(JBuilder) to actually do your coding, and you could write simulators 
with the appropriate "system classes" to simulate and debug your system 
code on any jvm...

Java System Version a tweaked version of Java (perhaps adding special 
new keywords) to make Java appropriate for programming an OS above 
assembly.  The overhead in writing your own language (extending Java in 
this case) and writing your own compiler does not seem as appealing.  
However option number one may not work so...

Alternatively, I've been thinking we could go with something like:

(assembly + C + (!file system)) + Java

This would de-unix the programming model for the OS but thinking of a 
new/better model would be a challenge.  Jini seems to be a nice 
possibility...
</random thoughts>

>> There is truth in this.  There is certainly stuff you can download,
>> install, and use.  It's just a question of who "you" are.  If you're a
>> potential JOS developer, well, Hell Yes.  If you're somebody who wants
>> to use a 100% pure Java word processor or run HotJava (geez, does that
>> even exist anymore?), well, probably not.
>
> Who wants to join the JOS Project? I hope potential JOS developers do. 
> All
> Java programmers are potential JOS developers. It should be our standing
> policy to encourage people to join the JOS Project, rather than turn 
> them
> away. Our response should be positive. We should try to be fair to 
> members,
> both old and new, about the progress we have made. I would object to the
> characterization of our project as a "failure" and its membership as
> worthless.

Yes.  And in this, we obviously disagree.  I don't think the membership 
is worthless but do see the project as being a failure.  At least to its 
performance to this point.  When I joined, the entire purpose of JOS was 
to create a jos within a relatively short period of time.  Researching a 
jos was only a means to that end and was only supposed to occur as 
needed to get JOS built.

> Who does not need to join the JOS Project? I hope end users don't. They 
> can
> download, distribute and use our products anonymously. End users would 
> be
> better served by subscribing to the jos-announce mailing list and/or
> occasionally visiting our project homepage.

I think you're wrong.  Look at the OpenOffice OSS project.  Most members 
are actually end users (75% I think).  I would wager that most members 
of Linux or FreeBSD are also end users as well.  Very few developers 
actually are members of the project.  This has been a very important 
reason why these organizations have a very different definition of 
members, contributors, and voters.

-iain


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com