Re: Hurd Advocacy?
On 19-Aug-03 18:11:04 Farid Hajji <farid.hajji@ob.kamp.net> wrote:
>[Timothy Rue]
>> There may seem to be some redundancy here from a very general perspective,
>> but user freedom does go beyond removing false constraints in user space.
>> Ease of use contributes to improving user freedoms but even more important
>> is the ease of which the user can put things/functionality together, for
>> themselves. There are alot of resources, already built functionality,
>> created under the GPL and such. No physical reason why such resources/
>> functionality can't be presented to the users in a manner that allows the
>> user to easily put things/functionality together, for themselves and as
>> they see fit.
>The Hurd is one possible architecture...
[snip - see thread for what I refering to]
I have no problems with anything you have written above (snip included).
It's all supportive of using a smart terminal OS in user space. No need
for each user to have to re-invent their own user space smart terminals
when something such as AROS can be used, hosted on the Hurd for the
advantages the Hurd provides, but also runnable independant or remote
from the Hurd.
>> A single user system is generally easier to use than a multi-user system
>> in very inherent ways. But the multi-user system of GNU has far more user
>> available resources than a typical single user system.
>Ack.
to which part or all?
>> The tool set is around the corner and platform independant, but IPC is the
>> third user interface (CLI and GUI being the first two) that allows
>> "putting things together".
>My bogometer just triggered :-)
>OS design is still complex engineering task. In the future, users may
>be able to drag and drop modules, filesystems and other resources in a
>nice flashy GUI environment (why not?), and they are also free to
>shoot themselves in the foot. Multiple times. With a machine gun...
>After all, it's all about user freedom. Nah, just kidding :-))
Be very careful how you treat the users, least you be preceived as an
arrogant fool if not also ignorant. And that would result in less
effective advocacy from you, for the hurd..
As things have been, the users have only been given two of the three
primary colors and additionally limited tools for those two colors, to
paint a picture. Why should anyone be supprised that all they see comming
from the users efforts look so bland, problematic and limited?
Like I said, I see the job security issue, just as such Roman numeral
"expertise" was there to stall out for 300 hundred years the integration
of the much easier and power hindu-arabic decimal system, so are there
those today who persist in preventing the needed changes in computing
that will provide the users with all three primary colors along with the
simple tool set that will allow them to better grasp the know how and do
with putting things together.
But the fundamental act of programming is to create automation of
complexity, which is made of simpler automations, in order to make the
complexity easy to use and reuse, by the user. A fundamental act that is
very recursive on multipule levels all the way up from the kernel to how a
user makes repetitive use in what they do, that given the tools to
automate what they recognize is repetitve enough for them to automate.
they will. And just like how GNU is built a small part at a time, so will
the resource base of available dynamic automations of complexity even
further expand the use of the GPL.
Just as the replacement of the Roman Numeral system by the Hindu-Arabic
decimal system allowed more to do more, including the experts that weren't
afraid to go into new territory, so shall providing the user with the full
three primary set of user interfaces and the simple (relatively speaking)
automation tools to put things together for themselves, more will get
done, including what the "experts" get done, who aren't afraid to go into
new automation territory.
Thru the Roman Numeral system usage, it would not have been possible to
invent computers, And that's not just the aspect of the Roman Numeral
system not have the all important "0". But in the advanced math needed to
create the machinery, for which the roman numeral system simply wasn't
capable of calculating.
Likewise, the fiction of a computer running a starship or even allowing a
child to program a complex holodeck like program, given todays programming
methology and elitism of expertise, these levels of programming will not
be reachable.
Of course it's important that we have the system designed with enough user
freedom and resources to allow such a change to happen.....
>> >If you're interested in contributing code to Hurd/L4, please consider
>> >subscribing to the l4-hurd@gnu.org mailing list.
>>
>> I may subscribe, probably will (is there a non-subscriber web based
>> archive I might use for monitoring the list?), but will pass the info
>> along to the AROS effort, that some may at least monitor the hurd L4
>> development that it may influence decissions they make with AROS
>> development. Especially as it relates to *running as a user-space*
>> *application on the Hurd*.
>http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/
Thanks.
>Sure, AROS could one day run on top of Mach or L4, and coexist
>peacefully with the Hurd on the same box. It may also run inside
>the Hurd as a task (or set of tasks). You're welcome and encouraged
>to put AROS on top of a microkernel (I'd really recommend
>L4Ka::Pistachio for this) instead of the bare metal.
I'm not the development party to do such a task, but as a matter of FYI,
MorphOS (closed source PPC Amiga Clone) does run on a microkernel and has
such future plans or roadmap that the Hurd with AROS (what I've been on
about) can actually achieve sooner and as non-proprietary.
[snip]
>No, I'm not referring to UAE or any other emulator, but to the port
>of NetBSD to Amiga:
> Current: http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/amiga/
> Future : http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/amigappc/
>This is NetBSD on an Amiga. AROS is AmigaOS clone.
>Sure, that's absolutely different, but both projects
>could cross-polineate as well :)
My mistake. But in this line of porting to the Amiga, there has long been
the Geek Gadgets project of porting GNU programs to the Amiga.
[snip]
>> How secure would something like AROS be, when running on the Hurd?
>How do you define "secure"?
Locks are for honest people, and we can break what we make.
Security as I define it is as the analogies I used of car keys and credit
cards, it is my physical possession of them that provides me with their
security. But security works both ways when dealing with a multi-user
system. Secure in the manner of preventing the user from tampering with
the functions that serve everyone as well as preventing others from
tampering with other peoples things, without permission.
---
Timothy Rue (3seas)
Email@ mailto:timrue@mindspring.com
WEB@ http://threeseas.net
VIC@ http://freshmeat.net/projects/victor1
Reply to: