Hi Bruce, The MOSA Forum is at mosa.ensemble-os.org, its SVN is at svn.mosa.ensemble-os.org (thanks Scott!).
There are currently members from JNode, Cosmos, Ensemble and SharpOS registered with the board. The discussions have flattened a bit there, but I still think the effort is "live". Ensemble is pretty much committed to using/working with MOSA as they're basically waiting for the compiler. However Scott is reserved due to SharpOS/Ensemble architecture differences, which I think can be resolved though. If we define proper interfaces and make all operating system "algorithms" pluggable, we'll get this done and we'll get another point: We're getting interesting from a research perspective. (Hi Adam!) A lot of progress JikesRVM has made the past years is due to research contributions - we have to get there to stay alive. I know compiler writing is viewed as black art, however a proper design deals with a lot of things without black art. If you take a look at my work you'll certainly find that it has a lot of pieces to it, but they're cleanly seperated and easy to replace (research!) and it will move us forward IMO. Mike Am 04.08.2008 um 02:46 schrieb Bruce Markham: > The SharpOS AOT is a fantastic machine. And if Chriss is still out > there listening - you have our deepest thanks for jump-starting the > project with it. > > However, I am in also in agreement with Phil and Mike, in that, > right now, there is no maintenance on it - I believe that unsaid > sentiment is that it simply isn't maintainable. Everyone here wants > to write kernel code. Or user level code. The AOT is the means to an > end - and several people now (through grover's MOSA efforts, > Ensemble, and Cosmos), have proven the basic ability to compile IL > to x86 is not particularly difficult. (Time consuming to implement, > sure. But there is more than enough documentation out there, and > previous works, to make a basic functionality work.) > > The problem is, no one can take it that step forward. We need > reflection, we need dynamic runtime bindings, and we need it to be > self-hosting. Whether or not an AOT is re-written, or the current > one is re-purposed - we still face the issue of *how* to bind the > kernel code to the AOT. > > All of our efforts as a whole, need to address this issue first and > foremost. The good news is, if we can agree - it doesn't matter > whose AOT to work we decide to extend in that direction. Any single > one could be the solution to getting us to the next step. Just like > there are standards for how C compilers and C# compilers and such > work - if we can define a standard on how we want the AOT to handle > a kernel - and then all agree to step forward with that - we can > benefit as a group. > > And *then*, we can start talking about driver architectures and code > sharing. *shudder*. (I think a "common kernel" is out of the > question, because of licensing decisions as well as varying schools > of thought around here. But at least a common API means we don't > have to share core implementation code.) > > Furthermore, I would like to assert that we not overlook JNode. MOSA > right now may just have a couple C# OS projects in it - but JNode > has us beat on the proof-of-concept managed operating system goal. > With the proper allocation of design efforts, we can create a set of > standards that does not preclude using IKVM, in combination with > whatever AOT a C# OS project is using, in order to run JNode driver > binaries. It bypasses alot of design and implementation work in > order to get us all into common ground. Without common ground, we > cannot refer to ourselves as seperate projects divergent from some > mystical original ideal. C# is not an ideal. Its a tool. And the > managed bit, well, its already been done. If we are looking to > innovate, we need a jump-start. And then we can talk about re-writes > and branches and optimizations down the road. > > I don't think there has been any official talks between SharpOS and > JNode. SharpOS + Ensemble + Cosmos relations are slippery at best. > The C# crowd - all of us - need to get our acts and heads together, > under MOSA, (not sure if Cosmos is still viable, much less, > interested in MOSA, but still). With that done, collectively, we > need to rise up to meet JNode, and extend a hand of friendship. > > So, if someone could re-post the information on MOSA (wasn't there a > discussion group or something somewhere?), I would be grateful. We > need start some topics of conversation at a centralized, non-biased > location. See if we can crack our skulls together to get an idea of > where to proceed. > > But I agree. We will either work together or die together. There are > too few interested and available developers right now for it to be > any other way. And if we allow ourselves to fizzle, we will pollute > the water for future generations that get curious regarding this > idea... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win > great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in > the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/_______________________________________________ > SharpOS-Developers mailing list > SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
