Byte on Mac OS X (and Rebol too)
[1/3] from: pa::russo::perd::com at: 28-Sep-2002 6:34
I just found this one on byte.com:
<http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7620/byt1032475416823/0923_bar.html>
It speaks about the "switching" of a Linux guru to Mac OS X. And there is
a quick citation of Rebol, too.
I think RT should have something to think about...
--
Paolo Russo
Amministratore Unico
PERD s.r.l.
Via Sannio, 59
00183 Roma
http://www.perd.com
cell. 380.7017.641
[2/3] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 28-Sep-2002 11:47
Hi Paolo,
On Saturday, September 28, 2002, 6:34:59 AM, you wrote:
PR> I just found this one on byte.com:
PR> <http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7620/byt1032475416823/0923_bar.html>
[OT] I wonder if this stimulates the Linux people to create a
better desktop, and better multimedia support. The only thing I
didn't like was that "BSD kernel running on top of a Mach
microkernel" --- I'm not sure I would want an OS that needs TWO
kernels to run. (Also, that not on microkernels not being fast
enough shows that that guy has never seen AmigaOS or QNX...)
I was a bit surprised that he cited REBOL with the other stuff.
That's very good. :-)
Regards,
Gabriele.
--
Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer
Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: http://web.tiscali.it/rebol/index.r
[3/3] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 28-Sep-2002 7:54
Hi, Gabriele and all,
I posted some links re this topic on Thursday, with subject
[REBOL] Re: Cross 'X' Platform?
I agree it's encouraging that he mentioned REBOL in the same
list with "other important tools".
Gabriele Santilli wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
> On Saturday, September 28, 2002, 6:34:59 AM, you wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> kernels to run. (Also, that not on microkernels not being fast
> enough shows that that guy has never seen AmigaOS or QNX...)
I'm a bit puzzled by his choice of phrasing re kernel layers, but
don't see "kernel over microkernel" as any more of an issue than
layers in other contexts (e.g., protocol stacks). The use of a
microkernel as a single point of control for resource sharing and
message passing in support of higher layers of system management
is well established AFAICT in the RTOS arena, where speed is of
the essence (pSOS in addition to your citation of QNX). Just for
the sake of completeness, we could add the Next OS (of which OS X
appears to be a descendent).
However, the point remains that getting Unix on the desktop is A
Good Thing, and the choice of Aqua-vs-terminal as the primary point
of contact is a tomayto/tomahto issue AFAIAC.
IMHO, the combination of VisiCalc and the Apple ][ probably had more
to do with early penetration of the professional (e.g. accountants)
and corporate markets by personal computing than anything else.
Wouldn't it be great if the combination of Mac OS X (nee Unix) and
REBOL could play a corresponding role in helping the larger market
really "get it" about distributed computing as well?
And even if it does so by motivating the Linux community to pay
more attention to interfaces for the non-technical user, that's OK
too... Take a look at
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/09/27/148235.shtml?tid=120
for another Unix-on-desktop alternative: a $199 box sold by WalMart
which runs Lindows (Debian deriviative with glue to run uSoft apps)
now supported by AOL.
Any foot in the door will do... ;-)
-jn-
--
; Joel Neely joeldotneelyatfedexdotcom
REBOL [] do [ do func [s] [ foreach [a b] s [prin b] ] sort/skip
do function [s] [t] [ t: "" foreach [a b] s [repend t [b a]] t ] {
| e s m!zauafBpcvekexEohthjJakwLrngohOqrlryRnsctdtiub} 2 ]
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted