From: Son SonOfLilit Date: 2006-06-13T20:34:10+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby as a kernel? ------=_Part_68999_16581099.1150198446541 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline OK, you caught me on terminology. What I was meaning was creating a computer operating system (not by the usual, low level definition, but the more windows 3.11 definition: a system that controlls everything useable on the system and everything the user interacts with) in ruby. To make this useful, there have to be /no services/ running on the system that didn't originate from it except for device drivers. Otherwise it would be on par with portable windowing systems and there woul= d be no gain from it's dinamicity. What I am envisioning is a system where things are developed only for YARV or as ruby extentions. It would indeed be non-POSIX, and loose most of the current available software (until a ruby cygwin-clone would be developed). But ten, twenty years from now, though perhaps POSIX won't be dead because of legacy systems, it would become a bad thing. Computers will be fast enough to incorporate reflection, fully OO APIs and persistent sessions. POSIX doesn't leave room for these features (except for the persistence). POSIX would be like building a wooden carriage on a modern Mercedes-Benz engine. With a horse for navigation. Reflection and OO communication between processes would be a must, and POSI= X will have to go or remain a compatibility layer. I think Ruby is fit for the challenge. Especially if invoking C extentions from within it would be easier. I already mentioned the problems you suggested with ruby inter-object security. I answereed your POSIX question. What say everyone? On 6/13/06, Juergen Strobel wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:38:30PM +0900, Son SonOfLilit wrote: > > This forks out of the "Ruby's role in future OSs" thread, since it deal= s > > with something completely different than the discussed there. > > > > When someone suggested a ruby-based kernel, he was responded by "that'd > be > > taking things too far". > > > > Well, if we consider Moore's law and YAMV, I think it isn't. > > Apart from all else, Ruby is too highly abstract for an OS kernel, > which would have to manage CPU registers, byte addressed memory and > I/O hardware. > > And almost no software ever uses kernel APIs directly. C/C++ projects > use the C library, which abstracts over many different kernels, and > that is as low as you get. Most other interpreter/compilers boil down > to using the C compiler and its library in the end, including ruby, java, > perl, php, ... > > > I know a ruby kernel would be a desperate effort to continue the M$ > policy > > of making OSs make up for changes in computer speed and beat Moore, who > > works for a competitor ( :P ) but > > still, the advantages would be well worth it (depending on ruby being a= t > par > > with Java regarding speed): > > > > Development time of apps for an OS who's native API is ruby dinamic > objects > > would go drastically down. Drastically. It's like developers choosing t= o > use > > ruby today even though it's much slower than C, since their time is > worth > > more than CPU time. Remember how much better ruby itself would be in a > > system that would not demand it to interface with un-OOP stuff all the > time > > (which I feel the most dirty when I do in ruby - it's just not right to > > output a file when you have everything as objects). > > > > Such an OS would be naturally reflective, a feature that would make the > > world (and especially the business world) a far better and more > productive > > place. > > > > Everything in such a system would be interdependent is a way that would > make > > customization a breaze - mixins would provide, for example, natural > handling > > of "file types" - you just extend the type object to do the services yo= u > > want. > > Well that is all conjecture -- just because the kernel is written in > Ruby, neither of these features would be present neccessarily. And > neither is a kernel written in ruby *required* for having them, or > even useful.. Just write a ruby library with your desired API. Maybe > have a DRb server running to handle requests (like syscalls). > > > Ruby is almost ready: it has natural threading and natural object > security. > > It only needs /better/ natural object permissions, transparent saving o= f > the > > environment on disk and a natural GUI that is done the-Ruby-way > (tm)(r)(c). > > A way to load C extentions from within ruby in runtime (I mean, write C > code > > in a ruby text editor, invoke gcc from the editor and dinamically load > the > > resulting .so) would help, too, and it's almost possible (well, it is, > but > > not as simple as it should be). From there it would be a matter of > months to > > create an OS that uses a linux kernel for bootstrap, memory management, > > basic disk i/o and networking and ruby for /everything/ else. Such a > system > > could be programmed easily from within itself using, say VMWare. > > > > Why is it too much? > > - Ruby os totally unready for in-kernel deployment. No low level > hardware access. > > - Ruby's threading is not adequate for an OS kernel. Besides not > beeing SMP-able, a kernel needs to do isolating multi-process > management too, or you end up with a very insecure and unstable OS. > > - Performance. For a piece of software which is run really a lot by a > lot of people, it makes sense to invest time into it to make it fast. > Now OS kernels are run by every user of this OS all the time, so this > is on the extreme end of where you don't want to trade development > time for execution time. > > - Ruby, as of now, relies heavily on a C library. When Ruby calls a > C library function, the library might go to the kernel, which is Ruby > itself again, which depends on the C library ... > > - I speculate you might embed a rewritten, absolutely self contained > ruby interpreter into the linux kernel, and have it do non-essential > work (drivers, modules). But since you want to delegate the most > important OS jobs to the linux kernel part anyway (memory, I/O, > process management) the resulting kernel's API will be not much > different than linux is now. > > - A GUI is not a required part of an OS kernel. > > - Let's assume you succeed writing this linux-ruby kernel-GUI, and > change the API to be ruby-ish. Now you have a new system architecture, > but no software for it. Since your kernel is by your definition > nowhere close to POSIX-family, it will be very hard, if not > impossible, to port the C-library to it, which is the foundation of > everything else. ANSI C *requires* byte adressable memory (with bytes > having a minimum of 8 bits), but your ruby-ish API only provides > object references. > > > That said, if you want to provide a more ruby-ish environment, go > ahead, but do it as a library/server, make your own GUI, and run it > under plain linux. That way you can do it piecemeal, step by step, and > at the same time keep access to all the other wonderful software not > written in ruby (yet). > > J=FCrgen > > -- > The box said it requires Windows 95 or better so I installed Linux > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEVAwUBRI6Y9fy64gyiEfXtAQK0iAgA7MV6Vi8xmWzD6LBp9NBxjVSnS1isGvwv > 7mO/DiNjD7ErIdOqV8NJUmGWkbunzfDtlyNaYESga5mvhuM9kxjxt4K6d8LEw5eX > mXulPd96/k4swc5bYR6N0bCqlAMqXvjNO+YnL2rOI/1S+HXJf4qQRmnmLZDRiEnl > Zgxb4vUEfztqnbshDijfBloBkpXpZwjefYoWz1PmAuwsBrz6exteB58W4thgYu8T > yWFMyTkCIhF63YNQdEA4nfwOM+DXacG/81Uiy2vfiAGaxPKvwjRPzyFACVv5WNrS > GfdhSHU+IoClsS5RFrAZGA2hrvMmiN2TlW/6zCQlFHoZBlgVLo85uA=3D=3D > =3D6+Wp > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------=_Part_68999_16581099.1150198446541--