Re: Linux, X, ld, gcc, linking, shared libraries and stuff

Beth wrote:
You know the "mantra" by now: "Type is defined by _usage_"...

I've heard you talk about the Unified Model so many times, I can recite that off the top of my head.

You know, why make it any more complicated than that? :)

I like small code, so I like this idea because it means less code to write, which is a plus on two fronts. The smallest code is the code that doesn't exist, correct?

Sounds interesting; 

Thank you; I try.

> Have you considered the "peer to peer" architecture I 
was talking about before? Fairly simple, really...and the reason I was
thinking of putting all the "file types" together into one...


Well, it's under consideration.

Instead of the usual "layered" style:
The reason to go through the OS to "request drivers" is for a few reasons:

1. The OS can check "security"...

Always a good idea. I'm not SolOS: SolOS has no security. That's Bogdan's issue, though.

2. The OS can provide "virtual device drivers", as needed... 

True, but the DOs can be DLs, DDs, and/or EXs all in one.

> for example, 
file systems or these image files and what-not...so, you could present them
as "disk drives" to the application and then just have the ordinary
"standard file I/O interface" that all disk drives follow (so, you know,
all disks and images and ZIP files or whatever you like, all "look" the
same to applications...or maybe not...you don't have to do this but I'm
pointing out the "possibility" of such a thing :)...

Well, I hadn't considered ZIP files, but it is perfectly possible. The only thing any programmer can do is provide a flexable architecture that can be molded into any shape the user wants.

3. The drivers could potentially be "hooked"...for example, the application
opens the "internet" driver...BUT the user installed a "personal
firewall"...and what happens is that the "firewall" presents the same
"interface" that the "internet driver" presents to applications...so,
applications program this no differently ("transparent" to the application
that the "firewall" is there :)...and the OS provides the application with
the "firewall", in fact...and the "firewall" passes things onto the real
"internet driver" (per doing its job as a "firewall", of course, that it
passes on what's "safe" and disallows what isn't :)...

OK, this seems complicated to have setup at first glance. Should the firewall be the executed program and the hardware driver the called item from the firewall? Otherwise, I have to introduce interception to the system; a property which is unlikely to be used anywhere else.

On the subject of networking, is anyone else annoyed by the level of network transparency in Linux. I know it's derived from UNIX, which has to be network transparent, but I find it annoying for a simple desktop. Anyone else agree?

This, to my mind, creates a situation that's more like how the old BIOS
used to work...

Speaking of the BIOS, I've been thinking about some way for the hardware/BIOS to make itself known to the OS and so the OS can grab a simple driver for the system and use it. A sort of Global Device Driver interface/format/something. (VESA have something like this for video hardware.)

On the subject of the drivers, I was also thinking of making a Linux subsystem for drivers. That way I can get all the hardware drivers for Linux, an immediate boost in driver numbers. (If I *really* wanted a boost, I'd go for a Windows subsystem, but I'm not going to even think of trying that.)

(BTW, in response to your ASCII vs UNICODE question, Bogdan's going for ASCII/English only, so I have the urge to go the opposite: "all Unicode, all the time." It sounds silly, but I actually kind-of like the idea, so it's getting itself some consideration.)

(non-GUI OSes need not apply here)...

:( 

Hey, only because it's about putting the GUI into the drivers themselves!
So, you know, "no GUI" = "nothing to be putting into the drivers"...so, it
wouldn't be applicable in that case...

Well, the frown was because (if I even get it out, and that is a big if) DotOS v1.0 will look like DOS. It'll have infinite extensibility, perfectly able to accept a GUI shell, other FSs, more DDs, and other extensions (hopefully), but it'll be shipped with only a text-mode shell (no GUI) and a minimal system. The text-mode shell will always remain, though, even if a GUI is shipped with later versions (perhaps starting with v2; we'll see how things turn out).

With this idea, I've just annoyed loads of people for even contemplating
it, much less saying it aloud...but I long for the OS that has no "legacy"
from the '70s or '80s to "maintain until the end of time"...and has to make
NO compromises for it...that _EXPLOITS_ that very fact to its
advantage...my interest, in the end, has always been to know what the
"limits" of things are...the "scientist" in "computer scientist", so to
speak, to enjoy the "experiment", the finding of "new ways" and "new laws"
or whatever...there are many who seem to want to find a "comfortable patch"
and settle down and such...I'm the entire opposite, in that I want to learn
about new things all the time...and this is in that spirit...I fully
respect that there's sod all wrong with the "old ways" but this, in itself,
does not seem any reason not to look for "better ways"...at the very least,
to at least _look_ to see what's there, even if it might turn out to be
crap and going back to the "old ways" makes more sense...to a "scientist",
there is no such thing as "failure"...to be told that all your ideas are
utter crap, can be as exciting as being told you're perfectly
right...either way, it's "knowledge" and that's, in fact, what "science"
literally means: "knowledge" :)...

Well, I think keeping the GUI out of the OS is a good idea (though the possibility of one should not be ignored). You could probably swap COMMAND.COM out for another shell and DOS wouldn't have known, correct? I like this way of doing things.

Beth :) 

--
The above was written by NoDot.

Visit the Website of NoDot:
<www.geocities.com/nodot1989/>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Free Commodities Are Abused
    ... Of course I should have guessed that with their 500 mb driver. ... the user made or some kind of exploit or hack. ... that's what my Netgear firewall is for. ... and copying data is a basic operation. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Crashing errors for past month
    ... My usual message is that a device driver ... UPDATES and PATCHES ... Windows Update ... You should at least turn on the built in firewall. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Question about firewall
    ... documentation of the interface: ... a firewall-hook driver. ... a firewall in the context of the TCP/IP protocol. ... Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK) ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: problem with computer restarting
    ... >i tried system restore and that doesn't seem to help at ... i send the report and download the driver ... but also a file or driver that failed. ... You've got to have anti-virus software & a firewall running. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: FBA driver install order
    ... > If this was hardware driver then PnP would install it by default only after parallel driver was starter and enumerated device ... > Also if this is hardware driver let us see inf file and give us more info about the device it handle. ... installed during FBA, its device key in enum\root was not created. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded)