Re: [jos-general] new to jos

[John M. <jm...@ma...>]

Hi;

Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> 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

Yup.  Otherwise we're just reimplementing that, and why should we
bother?

> 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.

Yup.

> <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).

Well, I'm not so sure the language has much to do with that.  However, I
*do* agree that anything based upon Linux is going to (sort of by
definition, but also in more subtle ways) lead us to UNIX.

> So, long term, I think we really need to be thinking of:
> 
> (assembly + Java) || (assembly + Java System Version + Java Standard)

Well, I was hoping that the amount of asm/C++ code could be minimized
(in jjos+decaf -- I do not speak for other efforts).  The C++ should
more or less be thought of as microcode -- no user-servicable parts
inside!

> 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...

JavaOS didn't do any of that, and it worked fine for building an OS.

> 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...

Well, as I said before, I'm not a big fan of the UNIX model here for a
desktop.  I want more of a Genera-type, single address space OS.  No
user/kernel split.  Having said that however, I'd implement the lowest
level microcode in asm/C++.

> 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

Well, perhaps I'd rephrase this ever-so-delicately as "not yet a
success."

> 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.

Yup.  "Go ugly early."  "Keep It Simple, er, Stupid." 
Rapid-prototyping.

> 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.

It is really nice to have "customers" (really alpha-testers) who can
help drive requirements, design, and implementation.  They are
invaluable.  In any suitably complex project, it often turns out that
the things that are so dear to developers are unimportant to the users,
and the users need things the developers didn't anticipate.

-jm

-- 
==== John Morrison
==== MAK Technologies Inc.
==== 185 Alewife Brook Parkway, Cambridge, MA 02138
==== http://www.mak.com/
==== vox:617-876-8085 x115
==== fax:617-876-9208
==== jm...@ma...