Talk:What Order Should I Make Things In?

NICk vs Nick

Re: "NICk Stacky: Typo", with NIC meaning network interface controller that was definitely not a typing error. The real question should be whether we want the keep pun in its original (obvious) state or not, or if dear Solar happened to just miss that. - Combuster 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I admit I missed the pun. Apparently, it wasn't that obvious to begin with, as all other references to Nick Stacky in the Wiki use the default capitalization... but I'd be fine either way. -- Solar 20:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

New Archetypes

I would like to propose two other archetypes you occasionally run across: Hal Virtuell (exokernel/virtualizer focus) and Parsa Lang (systems based on new languages, and/or p-machine or high-level language interpreter kernel based design). Both have real-world examples (MIT Exokernel System, VM/370 and Xen; Smalltalk-80, FIG Forth, and JavaOS), and both are addressed in existing pages of the Wiki. Are these worth mentioning? -- Schol-R-LEA 01:58, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

You have a point. There do exist archetypes that write their OS in language XYZ for no other reason than proving it is possible - Yours truly included :). At one point I even considered getting Haskell support working next to the BASIC support I already had. The only real problem is, you can subdivide these people in two categories: the ones that could potentially be making an OS in HTML (which do not belong here at all), and the people who actually know what they're up to (which I expect to consider the article a funny bit of self-psychology, rather than being truly useful). IMHO "Alto Lango" would be a better name tho...

I wouldn't really want to devote an archetype to exokernels though. Either they virtualize the whole mess and come to something that's just running one other OS rather than really being one, or they're the exokernel type and take it just as a design decision to put everything into userspace, after which you can still apply the other existing archetypes.

The conclusion is really that I think that your proposed archetypes are really just a subset of possible design decisions. If you coerce the language archetype into getting several programming languages working, it will however perfectly do as a good archetype as being an extreme variant of a development path.

- Combuster 17:29, 3 May 2008 (CDT)

So Where's The Archetype for the Unix Impersonator?

You know the guy, he want's to make a unix better than unix was! After all, if Linux can pull it off so can he! Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Primis (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 September 2013