1. EuOS and DOS
Hi Euphorians,
You can't create an operating system with Euphoria because it needs one i=
n
order to run, but you could create a really nice GUI with it - or you cou=
ld
be really innovative like combine a word-processor, spread-sheet and
database in one program removing the need to have three or more programs.=
Have you ever noticed on Star Trek or Babylon 5 that they never have to
worry about what program to run or what file to access - all they do is a=
sk
the computer and it gives them what they want. I know current technology
isn't quite up to that - but if you want to create a really new operating=
system, that could be a good place to start - Let DOS (or even Linux) and=
Machine code handle the low-level stuff and Euphoria can do the user
interface.
My thoughts on this are incomplete so perhaps some of you out there can
come up with some more ideas.
DOS seems to be making a come-back, specificaly DR-DOS - Have a look at :=
-
http://www.anchordesk.com/a/adt0720ba/2324
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/
http://www.caldera.com/
Caldera have even writen a DOS web browser !! I have also seen ROM versio=
n
of DR-DOS on single-board PCs - If you want a good platform to put our ne=
w
OS/GUI on, DR-DOS could be a good choice.
I guess people are starting to wonder why they need a 400MHz CPU, 64MB RA=
M
and 2+GB HDD to do even the most basic things and no doubt getting tired =
of
the "Blue screen of death". WinDoze is OK for some non-critical things bu=
t
I can't help feeling that WinDoze is not quite the right direction to go
in. Sometimes it's nessasary to take a couple of steps back in order to g=
o
forward.
I will write some more on this later.
Peter Blue
2. Re: EuOS and DOS
Peter Blue wrote:
<lots of snipp>
> Have you ever noticed on Star Trek or Babylon 5 that they never have to
> worry about what program to run or what file to access - all they do is ask
> the computer and it gives them what they want. I know current technology
> isn't quite up to that - but if you want to create a really new operating
> system, that could be a good place to start - Let DOS (or even Linux) and
> Machine code handle the low-level stuff and Euphoria can do the user
> interface.
<lots more snipp>
Um, somebody tell me I just missed it - is there an Euphoria for Linux??? ;')
\/\/ood/\/\age
PS: If not, then any chance of it coming about? I'm one of those people
playing with that OS and Euphoria for it would be super (IMO).
3. Re: EuOS and DOS
At 07:24 AM 10/11/98 -0400, Peter Blue wrote:
>Hi Euphorians,
>
>You can't create an operating system with Euphoria because it needs one i=
>n
>order to run, but you could create a really nice GUI with it - or you cou=
4dos + the shell ds421b is what I use. They make a great base for your
further improvements. Let me know if you want to know about ds421b. It is
shareware and gives a user friendly base for file handling, prog execution,
etc. Hence I have never felt the need for windows except when forced by some
prog I need to run.
Arthur P. Adamson, The Engine Man, euclid at isoc.net
4. Re: EuOS and DOS
- Posted by Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at XS4ALL.NL>
Oct 11, 1998
-
Last edited Oct 12, 1998
>My thoughts on this are incomplete so perhaps some of you out there can
>come up with some more ideas.
>I guess people are starting to wonder why they need a 400MHz CPU, 64MB RAM
>and 2+GB HDD to do even the most basic things and no doubt getting tired of
>the "Blue screen of death". WinDoze is OK for some non-critical things but
>I can't help feeling that WinDoze is not quite the right direction to go
>in. Sometimes it's nessasary to take a couple of steps back in order to go
>forward.
Interesting remark.
May I say, that windhoos (eh.. windows .. dutch joke) 98, with the right
tools, the right programs, and the right usage, can be a quick efficient
platform. But sometimes, I get annoyed when I use photo-shop 5, which can
handle almost any type of picture, but my webbrowser cant. And if it could,
it would have 2 or more copies of that code, optimized of safe 486. Not a
special MMX version, or P2 Version.
Would it be cool, if we could say, send the input of that.. to the
decompressor .. to that program.
First of all. How do we manage things, we have special machine dependent
routines, different ones for handeling I/O, Memory, Ports, etc.
In my point of view, the whole system should be one gigantic database, where
the fact that a certain 'item' (.. ring a bell ?) is stored in the memory,
swap file, on disk, on disk compressed, in my internet cache, an I/O port or
whatever is merely an attribute you can *if* you want, lookup.
However, no structures, no oop, etc.
We have 'items' and they all have attributes. They can determine the
attributes themselves. An attribute is an for item: 'a' >> b = c (read: for
item a, b is equal to c, if you ask item a, it will tell you b equals c)
Every attribute of one item, should be another legal item. So all items are
connected in a space. And the link between one item and another, (sometimes
it takes a lot of steps, from item to item, to get to the desired item) can
be different upon what attribute you are calling. So, all items are in a
sort of 'space', and all are directly connect to some other items and
indirectly to all items.
This has as effect, that we only call/calculate things when we use them
Consider me making this statement:
a = b * 3
b = 4
? a -- 12
b = 6
? a -- 18
So, if im not seeing a window, it is not being drawn.
Only the things that have to be done right away are done.
For example, a 3D shooter, we need to draw the screen, so we need to draw
the enemy, so we need to lookup his location, so we need to perform the AI.
All code/items are high level. And no actual programming occurs. You have a
few basic items that provide the tools (say, expression and evaluation
items). And based upon those items, come new layers of items, each very
small.
And every item, only defines a number of 'streams'.
The OS, would link it all together in real-time. Making short-cuts, whenever
it finds the item, the other item is asking for. Information is streaming
from one item to another. And that stream never ends. And how it streams and
through what items (even an item to sum up values, simerlar to the '+'
expression command in Euphoria).
Every item, just declares how it would stream. And in the end, when the
'path' is completely found, it ends of being information streaming from the
keyboard or another I/O to and from memory, to and from other hardware,
being proccesed inbetween.
All the code is divided upon little fragments, and such things, can look a
lot alike.
Also you can easily, let information from one place, stream into another.
Just connect them.
Consider this:
a = c + 1
a = b * 3
b = a /2
c = 7
-- Now item a is receiving the value '6', item b the value '2', item a
*then* receives the value '2', item c the value '1' and item 'b' the value
2/3, etc. etc.
This would go on for ever, however, the *next* value is only calculated when
asked upon.
> I will write some more on this later.
Please do.
Whatever you think of the above item/streaming concept, you people must
admit, in these days, with these advanced data-based capabilities our file
and I/O system is way too old, and can be much improved.
Ralf
5. Re: EuOS and DOS
- Posted by irv at ELLIJAY.COM
Oct 11, 1998
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 07:24:32 -0400, Peter Blue <PeterBlue at COMPUSERVE.COM>
wrote:
>Hi Euphorians,
>
>You can't create an operating system with Euphoria because it needs one in
>order to run, but you could create a really nice GUI with it - or you could
>be really innovative like combine a word-processor, spread-sheet and
>database in one program removing the need to have three or more programs.
>Have you ever noticed on Star Trek or Babylon 5 that they never have to
>worry about what program to run or what file to access - all they do is ask
>the computer and it gives them what they want. I know current technology
>isn't quite up to that - but if you want to create a really new operating
>system, that could be a good place to start - Let DOS (or even Linux) and
>Machine code handle the low-level stuff and Euphoria can do the user
>interface.
>
Linux is stable - no Blue Screen of Death. Some of my clients have
(without prompting) asked if they can switch over to Linux. The recent
>involvement of Netscape and Intel in Red Hat is getting a lot of
attention, and I have converted my home computer to Linux.
>The main complaint I have about Windowz, is that it takes way too
much effort to achieve results, which when finished, look exactly
like every other Windowz program ever written.
Not that there is anything inherently wrong with a GUI, but please
not one that ads 8 - 10x more code just to support the Windowing
system. It's just too much trouble.
Irv
>
>
6. Re: EuOS and DOS
Ralf:
>>I guess people are starting to wonder why they need a 400MHz CPU, 64MB RAM
You're very optimistic. Try a commercial graphic application, like Adobe
Illustrator, and you will quickly find that you really need at least 256 Mb
Ram...
Jesus.
(Hating the waste).
7. Re: EuOS and DOS
John Worthington wrote:
> Um, somebody tell me I just missed it - is there a
> Euphoria for Linux?
My mail's a bit slow this morning, so I don't know if this has been answered
yet. Pete Eberlein has created an "open source" portable version of
Euphoria, written in C. The link to his page is on the Recent User
Contributions page. I've heard that it has been successfully ported to
Linux.
-- David Cuny
