Scope statement 5 – Ready for today, ready for tomorrow

I’ve been describing a lot of interesting requirements for my OS in the preceding part of this scope statement. Actually, I believe that an OS built with respect of all these requirements would be by far the best desktop OS for most people once all bugs are fixed, except for hardware compatibility and software availability, issues that depend on time elapsed since first release and popularity among skilled developers. But in order to remain the best, it has to adapt itself to changes in the computer business in the future. This final article in the “scope statement” series will review this adaptability issue.

Fitting tomorrow’s need without introducing problems today is a sensitive issue. Every item in the “adaptability” criterion means more abstractions in the system, and more abstractions means more complicated (i.e. buggier) code and more bloat. I think that the following issues should be considered during development :

  • Hardware portability : First and before anything else, this does not mean that this OS should run on quantum computers and be able to command a matter-antimatter fusion powered spaceship. Work on hardware independence should remain focused on predictable evolution of today’s hardware without aiming to support any possible evolution of it in the future. Acceptable candidates are adaptation to multiplication of processors and touch-based pointing device, along with management of a large amount of RAM : hardware like that already exists, and will probably be more widespread in the future, without its support requiring too much change from nowadays’s one support.
    This OS should also adapt itself to the possibility of a decay in hardware performance, too. This means that its hardware requirement shouldn’t increase exponentially. Everyone has seen Microsoft’s failure at predicting the appearance of netbooks that forced them to maintain a somewhat outdated Windows XP, and we don’t want to go this way. In times of economic crisis and focus on mobility, low-performance hardware is more likely to sell widely, and this should not be overlooked.
  • User adaptability : The user needs and taste may change, too. User and programmer interface should be based on concepts that are not likely to change in the future (WIMP, processes and threads, etc…), and everything that might get out of fashion should be based on fashion-independent standards so that it may be modified while keeping consistency and application compatibility.
  • Simplicity : This is a major component of adaptability, as modifying simple code is easier than modifying complicated one. However, as we’ve seen before, too much hardware support is killing simplicity and hence, ironically, makes adding up support for new hardware more difficult… There is an optimum for this, which we are trying to find.
  • Powerful updates : To enforce good adaptability, updates should not become too much of a hassle. They should be easy to apply and not imply frustrating things like having to reboot the computer or wait for hours before it finally shuts down. They should also be manageable on a system-wide basis, and not in a per-application basis, so that the interface remains consistent and there’s less annoying popups. The operating system should help this by providing easy update-related APIs (allowing for example to save an application state, update it, restart it so that changes are applied, recover its old state, all that without significant user annoyance).
So here we are : we defined what’s probably the biggest issue that we will encounter during development of this operating system along with other that define its personality and goals. Now defining goals is fine, but if we can’t prove that they can be met, it’s of little use. In the next part of our analysis, called “system design”, we’re going to explain in more detail (but still without actually writing code) how an operating system meeting these goals could be organized and operate.
However, at the moment, I’m busy with some exams that happen to occur in the near future, and have to write a plan for the next part, so don’t expect the high publication rates seen lately to continue to occur in the near future. Take time to think about these goals, and report any flaw or wish in the comments of the relevant post. I’ll take care of your requests when I get some time. For now, thank you for reading !
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s