Slashdot Mirror
A Technical Look Inside TempleOS
jones_supa writes: TempleOS has become somewhat of a legend in the operating system community. Its sole author, Terry A. Davis, is a special kind of person, who has a tendency to appear in various places with a burst of strange comments. Nevertheless, he has spent the past 12 years creating a new operating system from scratch, and has shipped a functional product. An article takes a constructive technical look at the internals of TempleOS: installation, shell, file explorer, hypertext system, custom HolyC programming language, and interaction with hardware. The OS ships with a suite of several tools and demos as well. To see the sheer amount of content that's been written here over the years, to see such effort expended on a labor of love, is wonderfully heart-warming. In many ways TempleOS seems similar to systems such as the Xerox Alto, Oberon, and Plan 9; an all-inclusive system that blurs the lines between programs and documents.
My understanding is that it's some form of tourette's rather than actual racism.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
In contrast to a conservative living on government handouts, clearly the moral superior.
Relevant quote from article, stating that everything in TempleOS runs in ring 0, has no concept of users or permissions:
It's a good thing TempleOS has no network drivers because the system would be laughably insecure on any network.
People may have different religious views than you, but, so what, its a free country. The manner in which in this society we have this oversensitization to being offended and against someones views and opinions offending someone is being used to shut down free speech and the free expression and exchange of ideas and information. Its actually the worst with the leftists who are most intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their views on matters and use "being offended" by Christians to basically attack and shut down anyone who is a professed Christain from being able to talk about their own beliefs and profess it. There's in an old phrase, I disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. So many people today, especially those on the left, are becoming increasingly opposed to people being able to express themselves and use their own perverse, twisted and insane defintions of "tolerance" to shut down any dissenting or opposing viewpoints, especially if you are a Christian and someone doesnt like your viewpoints, you are accused and labelled as being "intolerant" and "hateful" just by expressing your own viewpoints and religious ideas, not by trying to shut down others ability to express their own. What is going on here is that "intolerance" is now expressing a view that other people think are offensive, rather than trying to shutdown others peoples ability to express their own views. They have in effect turned everything upside down. Now if it is "tolerant" to suppress and censor anyone who says something you offend with, and "intolerant" for anyone to express views you disagree with. By basically saying that if you disagree with leftist atheists, muslims or whatever, you are somehow "intolerant", leftists are shutting down free speech and claiming to be "tolerant" when in fact they are "intolerant".
It's really interesting how people jump in the bandwagon of bashing this because of it's author. But this article really points out things that I wanted to see but I missed from running templeOS, which are the interesting part that it's author created.
It's wonderful to see how when freeing a developer of current constraints of accepted programming practices it can come up with crazy but interesting and admittedly cool ideas.
The DolDoc was particularly interesting for me, mostly in a world where we have HTML everywhere plugged to a VM, DolDoc seems like a different approach (which I'm sure has plenty of flaws) to be considered at least as food for thought for future solutions.
And last but not least, I really respect someone who can do this kind of stuff. Even if I may not agree with his ideas, I'm glad that he spends time in actually creating stuff which is more that I can say about a lot of people.
Now that I've actually RTFA, as other people are saying he's a schizophrenic. Pretty cool operating system though, except for this:
TempleOS does not use memory protection. All code in the system runs at ring 0, the highest privilege level, meaning that a stray pointer write could easily crash the entire system.
...
He argues that Linux is designed for a use case that most people don’t have. Linux, he says, aims to be a 1970s mainframe, with 100 users connected at once. If a crash in one users’ programs could take down all the others, then obviously that would be bad. But for a personal computer, with just one user, this makes no sense. Instead the OS should empower the single user and not get in their way.
This only makes sense if you're running one program at a time. But if you're running 20 or more programs at once, like a regular user, then a bug in any one of them can cause weird behavior in the others, and it's almost impossible to debug or fix.
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Believe in god(s), demon(s), flying saucers, Cthulhu, animal spirits, whatever the fuck you want. I really don't care. ...until you want to shape the lives of others with rules or demands originated from your beliefs, at that point, kindly shut the fuck up and go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.
And I'm universally bigoted in this regard. Christian wants prayer or creationism in school? Fuck you. Muslim wants special meals served or no drawings of Mohammed? Fuck you. Buddhist doesn't want me to squash bugs in my house? Fuck you. Orthodox Jew won't sit next to a woman on a public airplane? Fuck you.
If your beliefs require anyone else to change their behavior in public, your beliefs are broken.
I will (sort of) agree that some groups (and not just the left) likes to use certain buzzwords to shutdown debate. Not 100% in agreement with some aspect of Israeli government policy? No, you're not an anti-semite.
It's not really that dishonest to ascribe conservatism to conservatives. Racism and religion are two traditional cultural artefacts. It's a simple fact that these are retained more by conservatives and rejected more by progressives, because that's what conservatism and progressivism mean.
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
"Intolerant" is defining "intolerant" as: "Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together"...
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
We ABSOLUTELY should make allowances in our "compete to be the first to take offense" culture for men and women like this. We shouldn't just care about the handicapped people that make us feel better about ourselves, or make us feel pity ("Aww, look at the wheelchair kid."). There are just as many people who are handicapped and are NOT pleasant to be around, but they're still people inside.
I started checking out his videos and he most certainly has something wrong in there (a VICE article mentions he has schizophrenia), and while the words he uses would offend most people, I don't think it's out of calculated malice at all. He really doesn't seem to be "all there." He has trouble putting sentences together, repeats himself. He believes God tells him to do this, and that, and speaks very casually about having a direct connection to desire of God.
IIRC, Schizophrenia is a disease where you're adapt at finding connections and relationships between ideas (like a typical smart or genius person) but the difference here is that the connections are false. Like "the Jews," "the blacks", "the Illuminati" or whatever are controlling X/Y/Z. Hence they tend to be vary paranoid because it's easy for them to put together connections (someone looks at you as you drive by == government is spying on them) that aren't there.
If we truly want to understand other people (and we should), we have to allow for the fact we're going to find a lot of uncomfortable ideas and actions. But trying to understand someone who is broken doesn't make us broken. They're not an actual threat to us and our ideals. Reaching out, and understanding these people is far more important than protecting "need" to feel comfortable in our environment. The only other option is to completely ignore and deny they exist at all.
Apples and oranges. there is a tendancy to compare a speech issue to what the law actually is regarding a non-speech issue. The gay wedding cake issue is not about speech, the baker didnt deny the gay couple any free speech rights. The baker was also not playing cop, businesses generally have a right to refuse services (not that I am wholly in agreement with this), and there are exceptions to that, the case concerns how far those exceptions go. About the issue regarding legality of acts in relation to speech, For instance, you have every right to suggest that say, driving 200 mph on residential streets should be legal, that its not legal does not mean your free speech rights have been violated to hold your own opinion on this matter. Free speech does not give you the right to do things that you can use your free speech rights to advocate should be legal. Its important with the wedding cake issue, was that they were not refusing service to all gays for any service, only the cake which was being used for the weddings. Obviously, to refuse service to gays for say, table seating in a restaurant, is a situation with different circumstances. Not all christians support the idea of refusing service to gays on the issue of providing a cake, basically becuase many christians have a view that its not our position to judge them, even though it is against the tenants of the religion. Not all christian denominations oppose gay unions, either, if you are gay there are several Christian denominations to choose from that would accept you and hold your ceremony. The people that were pressing these buttons on the gay wedding cake issue had plenty of bakers who would bake a gay wedding cake for them, they actually went from baker to baker to find one who one who would refuse to do it so they could then castigate them. Personally, I do not agree with refusing to make a wedding cake for gays, if I am running a business and someone comes to me wanting a lawful product or service I would not deny it to them on account of their sexual preferences. It is my view that gay marriage should not be legal, you cannot just change the definitions of words. I am supportive of civil unions for gays that give them the same benefits, they can call it a wedding if they want but thats not what it should officially be titled on paper. Yes, its about definitions of words, words do mean things, you cannot call a cat a dog and just change those definitions willy nilly, the very definition of marriage is a union between man and women for the purpose of producing children, it is important that Marriage mean something and have a clear definition for the function it is mean to encourage, to be something that is to promote family values as this is a critical bedrock for a civilization.
Yeah, it's exactly the opposite of what I want. I've been thinking lately it would be nice to have a Linux distribution which was really based around containers. I'd like to containerize applications, or groups of applications, from one another — let alone any daemon-type services, which should obviously also be in their own containers, or reasonable groups thereof. Another case where if only systemd were not insane, I would love to use it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Texas were ever to secede from the union, they would be the US version of ISIS. And the first thing they would do is start conquering neighboring states for their resources, because Texas is the least capable of all southern states when it comes to taking care of itself.
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
"Intolerant" is defining "intolerant" as: "Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together"...
No,it's not. It is intolerant to say to someone that you are not as important, not worthy of the same consideration as anyone else. How else would you define intolerant?
An irony... i can't think a way to define "intolerant" without being... intolerant!
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
Actually, intolerance is refusing to let people hold their own views and forcing them to act in violation of these views. Intolerance is forcing others to accept YOUR views over theirs.
Not baking a cake doesn't prevent anybody from getting married... Not delivering pizza to the reception prevent people from getting married either. Yet both are seen as intolerance that must be stamped out for the good of all.
So who's really being intolerant? The people who can still get married like they say they wanted, but have to find another place to get their cake and pizza or the baker and pizzeria owner that is being forced into doing something they think is wrong? Tolerance says, OK, I don't agree with you, but I can take my business elsewhere so I will.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Progress" and "progressive" are subjective terms. They could very easily mean racism and religion, if you determined that such things were the way of the "future". If you simply went by left-right orientations, you'd have your Communists in places like North Korea and Cambodia be "progressives". When applied to such regimes, the term "progressive" loses any positive connotation, but could still be considered to be "progress", if you mean progress towards an autarkic, authoritarian state.
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
"Intolerant" is defining "intolerant" as: "Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together"...
No,it's not. It is intolerant to say to someone that you are not as important, not worthy of the same consideration as anyone else. How else would you define intolerant?
Forcing someone to act in violation of their personal convictions just because YOU think you are right is intolerance. Not accepting that somebody's views may differ from yours and deciding to make an issue about it to force them into submission to your view (no matter how right) is intolerance.
Tolerance is recognizing that others can be wrong and it's not your job to correct them; that you can choose to just walk away and let them be as wrong as they like, even if it's inconvenient for you. That's tolerance...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Humans are relevance junkies. There's a literal chemical reward response in our brains when we connect bits of information together. It's an evolutionary adaptation that rewards smarter humans.
Unfortunately it's not hard to trigger this mechanism with bad but properly formatted information. Gossip. Social media. Conspiracy theories. Sensationalistic journalism. - These are "junk knowledge" akin to junk food. They taste good and feel good but you end up sick and unhealthy if you consume too much of them.
Many say that a whole lot of religious material falls in to this category. Seemingly perfect internal consistency is a dangerous and comfortable trap. It leads you to reject outside information because it's unpalatable and uncomfortable.
Like healthy food, healthy knowledge is sometimes tough, gritty, bitter and often takes getting used to. The rewards aren't immediate and preparation takes more time and effort.
The temptation to go out and get a drive-through burger is analogous to sitting in front of the TV to become informed.
It's also not hard to see why so many people are, frankly, fat and stupid.
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
"Intolerant" is defining "intolerant" as: "Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together"...
No,it's not. It is intolerant to say to someone that you are not as important, not worthy of the same consideration as anyone else. How else would you define intolerant?
Forcing someone to act in violation of their personal convictions just because YOU think you are right is intolerance. Not accepting that somebody's views may differ from yours and deciding to make an issue about it to force them into submission to your view (no matter how right) is intolerance.
Tolerance is recognizing that others can be wrong and it's not your job to correct them; that you can choose to just walk away and let them be as wrong as they like, even if it's inconvenient for you. That's tolerance...
And it's important to remember that some intolerance is good: we as a civilized society do not tolerate murder or injustice for example (at least that's our goal - we often fall short but not for lack of trying). So "intolerance" should not be used an automatically dirty word; if an intolerant position is bad, it's not enough to label it so - you have to demonstrate why.
We as a free society NEED to tolerate differences of opinion, especially on important matters. It's sort of a prerequisite.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're