Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility)

[Justin Emmanuel]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justin Emmanuel <address@hidden>
Date: 26-Oct-2005 02:00
Subject: Re: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility)
To: William Grim <address@hidden>


Whereas I think "If you build it they will come" as long as

a) There is plenty of documentation
b) It is easy to write code for
c) The end users can set the system up with the least technical
knowledge/effort as possible

These are things that Microsoft did, these things work. MS Windows
does not particularly follow standards. But the tools and
documentation are second to none. If you chose POSIX, chose it for
architectural reasons. If it is easy and secure from both an end user
and a developers perspective (even if they have to learn a new way of
doing things). People will write for it. Being open source, there are
other benefits that cant be ignored.


On 26/10/05, William Grim <address@hidden> wrote:
> I know I haven't really said much on this list due to some technical
> difficulties with email on my side, but I do want to say a couple things.
>
>  First, I think both Shapiro and AMS have valid points.  I think Shapiro
> makes a good case that the underlying system (what the users and application
> developers do not see) does not have to be POSIX.  In fact, on a good
> system, a POSIX layer shouldn't be terribly difficult to implement.
>
>  Secondly, I agree with AMS that POSIX should not be considered a second
> class citizen.  Yes, a lot of command-line interfaces (CLI) are based on
> POSIX interfaces, but so are a lot of other software.  I suppose an example
> of this would be any sort of app a developer may write in python or perl.
> Things like IPC semantics are derived from the POSIX idea of IPC.  I know
> that this now sounds like I'm arguing for a developer's sake, but developers
> write software for end users.  If developers don't have familiar platform
> when coding, a lot less developers code for the platform; hence, less end
> users get software they really need.
>
>  So, I think that what we should really be concentrating on is a good
> chassis (primary system design) and add a POSIX layer as we go.  I think
> having the POSIX layer should be the de-facto layer that end-users see.  In
> fact, my initial interpretation of the Hurd design was that it was a
> POSIX-compliant OS that offered useful extensions, such as capabilities and
> distributed processing.  This was my interpretation, and I'm sure it will be
> the interpretation of others that follow me.
>
>  Sorry if I'm rambling, but I just wanted to be clear about my personal
> opinion on this matter.  I really don't see why Shapiro and AMS can't be
> simultaneously satisfied.  It seems that they are both arguing for virtually
> the same things but on slightly different sides of the spectrum (Shapiro for
> more GUI-based library support and AMS for the more classical POSIX
> approach).  I guess I could be missing something, and maybe I will need to
> explain further why I think both people (hence, both sides of the spectrum)
> can be satisfied simultaneously with good engineering.  However, I'll wait
> for further questioning.
>
>  Thanks!
>
> --
> William M. Grim
> Student, Souther Illinois University at Edwardsville
> Unix Network Administrator, SIUE, CS. Dept.
> _______________________________________________
> L4-hurd mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
>
>
>