[movitz-devel] Object sharing between processes

[Janis Dzerins]

mikel evins wrote:
> 
> On May 5, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Janis Dzerins wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> What you want (I guess) is to bring a lot of concepts of conceptual OSes
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^
I meant "conventional" here.

>> to Movitz (LispOS).  What "we" are after, on the other hand, is the
>> *Lisp* OS.  We don't want programs each having different understanging
>> of what arguments are and how they are specified -- we have functions
>> with their calling mechanism.  We want "Lisp down to the metal", with
>> all the benefits it brings us.  I suggest reading some materials on
>> existing Lisp OSes (use google, or this link for a start: <URL:
>> http://www.its.caltech.edu/~weel/lispm.shtml >).
> 
> 
> Note, though, that there are some handy features of non-LISP operating 
> systems that we would probably like to have (certainly, that I would 
> like to have).

I'm all *for* it, too.  That's what the Movitz is for, after all -- to 
experiment with those features in order to make a "better OS".  And that 
means we should try to do better than the OSes we have now.

In other words -- we get a lispy substrate (Movitz) and then build our 
dream OS on that.  I'm quite strongly against "yet another OS", which it 
would become if we'd focus our work on reimplementing stuff from other 
OSes (like the stuff Peter mentioned in his other mail about web-servers 
and wwwroots and what not -- in lispy OS the concepts are different so 
there's no need to even talk about such things).

In yet another words, if we want to make something better, we *must* 
talk in kinda meta level, not in terms of current OSes and their 
concepts.  I think lispniks are quite used to discussions in meta-level :)

I hope I'm making my point a bit clearer now.  But I may still lack the 
communication skill to get it over to the other side.

-- 
Janis Dzerins

   Common Lisp -- you get more than what you see.