From martin at szutner.com.ar  Mon Nov 24 18:45:22 2008
From: martin at szutner.com.ar (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J._Mart=EDn_Fern=E1ndez_Szutner?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:45:22 -0700
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
Message-ID: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>

Hi I am so interested in word in Ruby OS

I am new (Nuevo) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ros-talk/attachments/20081124/682daa84/attachment.html>

From sonoflilit at gmail.com  Tue Nov 25 01:59:55 2008
From: sonoflilit at gmail.com (Aur Saraf)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:59:55 +0200
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
In-Reply-To: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
References: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
Message-ID: <f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>

Hello J. Martin,


This mailing list has been dormant for as long as I remember.

Personally, I'm not very much for a ruby OS these days, as Smalltalk
implementations like Squeak that I have come to know have all the
properties that I wanted in my vision of a Ruby OS.


If you have anything new to add, you might convince me, though, and
there are a few other lurkers here if I remember correctly.


Why do you want to create a Ruby OS?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:45 AM, J.  Mart?n Fern?ndez Szutner
<martin at szutner.com.ar> wrote:
> Hi I am so interested in word in Ruby OS
>
> I am new (Nuevo)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-talk mailing list
> Ros-talk at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-talk
>

From william.full.moon at gmail.com  Tue Nov 25 06:00:03 2008
From: william.full.moon at gmail.com (* William)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:00:03 +1100
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
In-Reply-To: <f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
	<f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9e03c3c60811250300i8916876s4bf3a64373347cbb@mail.gmail.com>

Hey gang

Actually, I didn't lurk, I posted everyone seemed apathetic.  Or satisfied
with what ever they use now, linux, ms/nt.  Others?   um ... no.  'Windows'
is a shell it isn't the OS that the shell runs on top of.

However, I don't really want to make a ruby-os, I want a networked o/s, or a
networking o/s and I pretty much think that ruby is one of the languages
that can do the job without doing the kinds of hevy lifting one may need
with other languages that don't know quite what a remote-resource is.

If nothing else it is a worthy conversation.

Ciao /w

2008/11/25 Aur Saraf <sonoflilit at gmail.com>

> Hello J. Martin,
>
> If you have anything new to add, you might convince me, though, and
> there are a few other lurkers here if I remember correctly.
>
>
> Why do you want to create a Ruby OS?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ros-talk/attachments/20081125/cb682e11/attachment-0001.html>

From sonoflilit at gmail.com  Tue Nov 25 07:40:44 2008
From: sonoflilit at gmail.com (Aur Saraf)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:40:44 +0200
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
In-Reply-To: <9e03c3c60811250300i8916876s4bf3a64373347cbb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
	<f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
	<9e03c3c60811250300i8916876s4bf3a64373347cbb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8c47620811250440p66cd4b8cn749c45bcdaa2dd3f@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM, * William <william.full.moon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey gang
>
> Actually, I didn't lurk, I posted everyone seemed apathetic.  Or satisfied
> with what ever they use now, linux, ms/nt.  Others?   um ... no.  'Windows'
> is a shell it isn't the OS that the shell runs on top of.

The MS guys let the marketing determine names instead of engineering,
leading to a state where "windows" is both. Kind of like the
Schroedinger's cat of operating systems.

> However, I don't really want to make a ruby-os, I want a networked o/s, or a
> networking o/s and I pretty much think that ruby is one of the languages
> that can do the job without doing the kinds of hevy lifting one may need
> with other languages that don't know quite what a remote-resource is.

I heard REBOL does that.

Erlang is great at remote resources, but definitely not generic
enough. I've tried it.

I feel ruby is too heuristic to write low-level stuff in. It does too
much magic, both in the interpreter and in the standard library (and
in the culture, which is most important).


Tried REBOL?

 -- Aur

From martin at szutner.com.ar  Tue Nov 25 13:54:56 2008
From: martin at szutner.com.ar (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J._Mart=EDn_Fern=E1ndez_Szutner?=)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:54:56 -0700
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
In-Reply-To: <f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
	<f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002601c94f2f$50ae0990$f20a1cb0$@com.ar>

I have anything rason, 
1. ruby it is clean
2. simple and it will be are good example for OS classroom in engineer
school
3. unlike linux (monolithic OS, at least kernel) ruby necessarily going to
be OO.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ros-talk-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ros-talk-bounces at rubyforge.org]
En nombre de Aur Saraf
Enviado el: martes, 25 de noviembre de 2008 12:00 a.m.
Para: Ruby Operating System
Asunto: Re: [Ros-talk] hello word

Hello J. Martin,


This mailing list has been dormant for as long as I remember.

Personally, I'm not very much for a ruby OS these days, as Smalltalk
implementations like Squeak that I have come to know have all the
properties that I wanted in my vision of a Ruby OS.


If you have anything new to add, you might convince me, though, and
there are a few other lurkers here if I remember correctly.


Why do you want to create a Ruby OS?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:45 AM, J.  Mart?n Fern?ndez Szutner
<martin at szutner.com.ar> wrote:
> Hi I am so interested in word in Ruby OS
>
> I am new (Nuevo)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-talk mailing list
> Ros-talk at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-talk
>
_______________________________________________
Ros-talk mailing list
Ros-talk at rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-talk


From janmeijer at gmail.com  Tue Nov 25 14:53:36 2008
From: janmeijer at gmail.com (Jan Meijer)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:53:36 +0000
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
In-Reply-To: <002601c94f2f$50ae0990$f20a1cb0$@com.ar>
References: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
	<f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
	<002601c94f2f$50ae0990$f20a1cb0$@com.ar>
Message-ID: <41d9d9ae0811251153k7485a35ctc3e7db91cb3a8fe8@mail.gmail.com>

I`m still dormant.. these are my dormant convictions..

* I don`t think Linux is open source for one reason: while it is in C or C++ it might as well have been written in Brainf**k, it is definitely not accessible. Only C-priests will be able to change it. Open source or not: big failure. 

* There is so much that doesn`t need to be done in C. Using Ruby is many times more effective (look at Sketchup for a wonderful example of a ruby implementation, it is very responsive).

* C(++) doesn`t allow the computer to be smart. So programmers have to be. And they aren`t half as smart as they think they are, and not half as smart as they can be. So Ruby is potentially more efficient. 

I still don`t get it why I need 1G of memory to do such simple things. That`s only needed in my view if you want to do all things you can do with a computer, all at once, and prepare the computer for that event. C(++) is therefore part the culprit. 

In my opinion the OS should penetrate and be all appplications, like a language does. 

In fact my complaints are based on the fact  that C/C++ penetrate apps, while it shouldn`t, it should be restricted to the dungeons, as trolls should, as it is in Ruby or other scripting languages. 
At our level, a more human level of interfacing is required. Our best bet sofar? Ruby?? Why not?

jan








On 11/25/08, J.  Mart?n Fern?ndez Szutner <martin at szutner.com.ar> wrote:
> I have anything rason,
> 1. ruby it is clean
> 2. simple and it will be are good example for OS classroom in engineer
> school
> 3. unlike linux (monolithic OS, at least kernel) ruby necessarily going to
> be OO.
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ros-talk-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ros-talk-bounces at rubyforge.org]
> En nombre de Aur Saraf
> Enviado el: martes, 25 de noviembre de 2008 12:00 a.m.
> Para: Ruby Operating System
> Asunto: Re: [Ros-talk] hello word
>
> Hello J. Martin,
>
>
> This mailing list has been dormant for as long as I remember.
>
> Personally, I'm not very much for a ruby OS these days, as Smalltalk
> implementations like Squeak that I have come to know have all the
> properties that I wanted in my vision of a Ruby OS.
>
>
> If you have anything new to add, you might convince me, though, and
> there are a few other lurkers here if I remember correctly.
>
>
> Why do you want to create a Ruby OS?
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:45 AM, J.  Mart?n Fern?ndez Szutner
> <martin at szutner.com.ar> wrote:
>> Hi I am so interested in word in Ruby OS
>>
>> I am new (Nuevo)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ros-talk mailing list
>> Ros-talk at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-talk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-talk mailing list
> Ros-talk at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-talk mailing list
> Ros-talk at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-talk
>

From sonoflilit at gmail.com  Tue Nov 25 15:11:34 2008
From: sonoflilit at gmail.com (Aur Saraf)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:11:34 +0200
Subject: [Ros-talk] hello word
In-Reply-To: <41d9d9ae0811251153k7485a35ctc3e7db91cb3a8fe8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000001c94e8e$ba9b1ce0$2fd156a0$@com.ar>
	<f8c47620811242259g1cfea223q83bc30301db9619c@mail.gmail.com>
	<002601c94f2f$50ae0990$f20a1cb0$@com.ar>
	<41d9d9ae0811251153k7485a35ctc3e7db91cb3a8fe8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8c47620811251211o4d943065h4866a5c7c718ca92@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Jan Meijer <janmeijer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I`m still dormant.. these are my dormant convictions..
>
> * I don`t think Linux is open source for one reason: while it is in C or C++ it might as well have been written in Brainf**k, it is definitely not accessible. Only C-priests will be able to change it. Open source or not: big failure.
>
> * There is so much that doesn`t need to be done in C. Using Ruby is many times more effective (look at Sketchup for a wonderful example of a ruby implementation, it is very responsive).

I'm pretty sure SketchUp was written in C++...

> * C(++) doesn`t allow the computer to be smart. So programmers have to be. And they aren`t half as smart as they think they are, and not half as smart as they can be. So Ruby is potentially more efficient.

Thanks. I like to be smart. In the way that LISP or Ruby or Forth lets me be.

Regardless... Ruby is one of the less efficient languages around.

LISP and Smalltalk come to mind as languages much more fitted to
penetrate and be all applications.

> I still don`t get it why I need 1G of memory to do such simple things. That`s only needed in my view if you want to do all things you can do with a computer, all at once, and prepare the computer for that event. C(++) is therefore part the culprit.

You sound like a FORTHer. Did you ever try FORTH?

> In my opinion the OS should penetrate and be all appplications, like a language does.
>
> In fact my complaints are based on the fact  that C/C++ penetrate apps, while it shouldn`t, it should be restricted to the dungeons, as trolls should, as it is in Ruby or other scripting languages.
> At our level, a more human level of interfacing is required. Our best bet sofar? Ruby?? Why not?

Because it is not our best so far. I love Ruby and it is still my
favorite language, but it is not the language with the clearest and
simplest and most powerful interface around. Both LISP and Smalltalk
kick it's ass in that department.

If my computer had to live entirely inside an interpreter of a dynamic
language, I'd choose LISP.

But probably a new dialect, with inter-process separation being built
in to the language. I cannot even imagine how, though... Unless we
disallow writing performance critical code in Assembly or otherwise
messing with the compiler...


Your opinions?