SkyOS?

[Martyn]

bloodline wrote:

I would appeal to them though, and ask that they attempts to pool resources on things like drivers.. if we had a common driver interface that would benefit all projects...

What do you think about UDI?  Good?  No good?

[Martyn]

IonDeluxe wrote:

I would appeal to them though, and ask that they attempts to pool resources on things like drivers.. if we had a common driver interface that would benefit all projects...

That is the single most intelligent comment I have seen in months

Couldn't agree more.

From the UDI FAQ:

2. What is a Uniform Driver Interface?

Like other device driver interfaces used in Operating Systems today, UDI defines an architecture and a set of APIs for use between the driver and the surrounding system. This allows drivers and OSes to be developed independently. UDI goes a step further and provides APIs that are OS-neutral and platform-neutral, allowing multiple OSes and platforms to use the exact same driver.

UDI also provides uniformity across device types. Many OSes today use drastically different driver interfaces for different types of devices (e.g. SCSI vs Network). UDI provides a common infrastructure for all drivers, with extensions for specific device types.

[Martyn]

bloodline wrote:

Some things I note about UDI is the large SCO input, that immediatelly makes me cautious of such a system and the rather conspicious lack of drivers...

True, that raised my eyebrows at first but you need to bear it mind when UDI first got off the ground (around 1999-time) and SCO's recent history of buy-outs, renaming, linux firtation and not litigation.  I'm not sure if if really the same company anymore.

I think it's "clean".

But it is exactly the sort of thing we need.

Sure is.