[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] Re: :zz: Peter's oooo...kay: Is ZZ an OS?
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] Re: :zz: Peter's oooo...kay: Is ZZ an OS?
- From: Andrew Pam <xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 02:07:01 +1000
- In-reply-to: <184.108.40.206.19981002005224.00888850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from Ted Nelson on Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:52:24AM +0900
- References: <220.127.116.11.19980630000324.014597e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18.104.22.168.19980630000324.014597e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <19981002014124.O2218@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <22.214.171.124.19981002005224.00888850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:52:24AM +0900, Ted Nelson wrote:
> >That's not an OS; that's a file system (a system for filing things!)
> As I stated it, yes. As I meant it, no.
> If we create a system which has no constructs
> other than ZZ structures, it is more than a filing
> system. It will be a complete conceptual environment
> and hence qualify as an operating system.
Not necessarily. An operating system and a "complete conceptual
environment" are not necessarily the same thing. The conceptual environment
can be a PART of an operating system - the part that is apparent to the user.
> Obviously we can *simulate* an all-ZZ system with
> the present structure, and taking it out to Unix commands,
> for a long time.
That still doesn't make it an operating system; only an operating
environment, aka "shell", "GUI" or "desktop", which is not the same thing.
> Another way to look at it: if ZZ functions are available
> at what is presently called the "file level", so you can
> attach things to files via zz connections, and begin to
> redesign conventional files in terms of discrete connections
> among ZZ structures and (say) OSMIC streams,
> now you're creating a comprehensive environment
> independent of the fundamental constructs of conventional
> operating systems. This is one of my intents.
Yes indeed. That would allow new kinds of operating system design.
But Zigzag would still only be a component of such an operating system.
> >An OS is responsible for directly operating the hardware and providing
> >a standardised way to access and manipulate computer hardware and system
> >services, which is not something I expect ZigZag would be well suited for.
> Well, maybe we'll just see, won't we !-)
I can't presently see any advantages to developing hardware device
drivers using the Zigzag structures, and considerable disadvantages.
Feel free to convince me otherwise with examples.
*** Xanni ***
mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxx Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/ Technical VP, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/ Technical Editor, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
P.O. Box 26, East Melbourne VIC 8002 Australia Phone +61 3 96511511