RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Frank Naumann
> Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 4:06 PM
> To: mint@fishpool.com
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
>
>
> Hi!
>
> > Yes, but the change for SIGPWR is in it.
>
> Yes, it is. We aggreed to add it.

When I checked on Deja News, I could only see that the discussion did not
end with any agreement -- unless you are referring to a discussion that
wasn't done here...

> > In my eyes, everything should be secondary -- otherwise don't complain
> > about people sticking with MagiC.
>
> Interesting opinion. So you prefer to stay with the existing kernel and
> only fix bugs? Then I ask why you never said anything until now. There are
> major improvements without any discussion ...

See the next paragraph that you quoted.

> > I don't say that there can't be new features. The question is: do they
> > need to be in the kernel, or does it make more sense to enhance the
> > kernel interfaces (like for shared libraries). I can think of a lot of
> > shared services I would like to see in my system, but do they need to
> > be *in* the kernel? I don't think so. Examples: character set
> > translations, encryption (yes), XML parser, regular expressions, and so
> > on....
>
> But before we need a shared library concept and for that we need kernel
> support and for that we must enhance the kernel and so on.

And yes, that's great and this is exactly the kind of innovation I *do*
like. Rather than a new signal for UPS or a new filesystem to make the
Linux-ps happy.

> > I like Unix. But: if I would want a Unix system, I would just install
> > it.
>
> So we better remove any Unix extension? For this you can use MagiC
> instead.
>
> > If your plan is to turn MiNT into a Linux clone then I must say --
> > completely futile. Become a Linux contributor and add a GEM interface
> > layer instead.
>
> My plan is to enhance FreeMiNT to a modern and powerful operating system.
> And I think it's not good to orientate us on Windows.

And I never said that I do.

Right now however it seems that we have a lot of feature creep (because it's
very easy to just keep adding tiny bits), instead of major architectural
improvements (which generelly come from you, as a side note :-).