h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Bassically computer software can only do 4 things, open files, write files, recive input, and draw things to the screen. So you could theoretically write an operating system in which rather then having diffrent programs to do everything you would allow your operating system to handle the drawing to screen
operations, the interpertaion of inputs, the opening and writing of files. Programs would tell the operating system what files needed to be opened, writen, and would give the operating system anywhere from basic to complex instructions on what to draw on the screen. While at first this seems alot like what they have now the benifits exist in that when your operating system loads is effectively loads the frontend for every program you have running, this means that you wouldn't need to wait for any programs to load up. Plus it would be really easy to write programs, and every program would have a unified look look to it's gui.
[link]
|
| |
I dont want a unified look, I want different features depending on what I am doing. I think that in general this is the way things already work. |
|
| |
Yes, this seems more a description of how things already work or should work. Existing system libraries are pretty extensive and more are available to application programmers. As far as the unified look, there's been cycle of moving ui features from programs into the os. Programs still take time to start up because not all os components are kept in memory at all times, because the programs themselves have logic and data that needs to be loaded and because dynamic links have to be resolved. |
|
| |
Isn't this what operating systems do? For example, doesn't the unix kernal provide routines for writing to and from the file system, (and various pseudo file systems, such as 'terminal', 'print' etc) |
|
| |
Likewise, Windows is well known for providing an API layer to programmers that includes fully managed file i/o etc. (among other things too, like fully animated shit paperclips) |
|
| |
In what way is the idea as described different from the concept of 'An Operating System'. These have been around since the 70's. |
|
| |
Or maybe I missed something. |
|
| |
Congratulations, you designed C/PM. |
|
| |
So all we have to do now is travel back to
1974 and get there first? |
|
| |
I'm having trouble understanding how your
idea differs from what modern (or any)
operating
systems already do. Can you elaborate? |
|
| |
Dunno nowt about CP/M, but baked in the Mac Toolbox routines in the ROM in the 1984 Mac 128k, and every Mac since. |
|
| |
This idea would be great if the OS had a spell checker integrated |
|
| |
[absinthe] osx for macs has both spell
checker and dictionary integrated so this is
baked as well. |
|
| |
Spell checker in the OS? For every language I suppose? And for every speciilized jargon? Seems like somethng that belongs at the UI level, not at kernal. |
|
| |