4 ms·
I don't think we're on the same page here. You don't need Linux for the kernel. Insofar as there's a kernel, it's the programming environment itself (like Small
by scroot 9y ago
I don't think we're on the same page here. You don't need Linux for the kernel. Insofar as there's a kernel, it's the programming environment itself (like Smalltalk) or a set of primitive programs written in that environment (like Lisp).
For graphics you don't need X or Wayland or any of that stuff. BitBlt was able to handle graphics in Smalltalk, because the hardware of the Alto (via microcode) was setup to allow Smalltalk to handle all graphics. If you truly wanted something optimized, something like Nile/Gezira and DSLs written in the environment could work too.
The whole point is that such a system would need to be redesigned and rebuilt from the hardware level on up. A difficult task, to be sure, but the reward is invaluable: the ability to reason about the entire system through the system itself.
- mbrock 9y agoOh. For me it's just pointless drudgery to remake everything like that. I want a new fully coherent and portable system using an existing kernel and graphics layer for bootstrapping. I mean, Emacs or Squeak are already almost there as far as I'm concerned.