Taken from http://lists.tunes.org/archives/tunes-lll/1999-July/000121.html

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 07:43:54PM -0400, Paul Dufresne wrote:

> My brother did found it funny that Retro is called like that. > For him retro means going back (generally in time) so this > does not looks like a name of a OS to come. So he'd like to > know from where the name came.

Heheh, here's the story: When I started playing with OS stuff last year (not seriously), I was reading about some old things like FORTH and ITS, dating back to the 1960's and 70's. The past few years in America, there's been a revival of disco music (along with bell bottoms, platform shoes, and all that crap) and they call it "retro". Now, my OS was named by musicians.. I was telling a fellow musician about my ideas, how it would be cool to have a small OS that isn't bloated and unmanageable like Windows... go back to the 70's and resurrect a line of software that died out. He goes "hmm.. sounds kinda retro.."

I think it sounds kinda rebellious, which is a Good Thing now that everybody hates the M$ empire. :) It seems like other people are as sick of the future as I am. Look at TUNES, the idea there isn't to make some great new invention, just take some decades-old ideas and combine them in one OS. The first time I saw Knuth's "Art of Computer Programming" in the library I thought "god that looks old.. 1973!!! nevermind.." Now it's my programming bible. Find me something better published in the 90's.. if such a thing exists, it'll be like a needle in a haystack. "Newer" doesn't necessarily mean "better".

New cars = flimsier New farming methods = more devastating New version of Netscape = more bloat, more bullshit

One thing is better now: computer hardware. Give me 70's software on 90's and 00's hardware :)

• Tom Novelli <tcn@tunes.org>






Computer software is a technology in its infancy, a mere fifty years old. The last 25 years in particular have seen an explosion in the software business. However, software has seen little innovation while hardware technology has improved phenomenally (notwithstanding the advent of lousy slave-made parts). Proven software techniques of forty years ago have yet to reach widespread use, in deference to the "latest and greatest" proprietary solutions of dubious value. Thanks to agressive marketing, we make huge investments in these dead-end technologies (through our businesses and governments, if not personally) and we end up with a reliance on a heap of complicated, error-prone, poorly understood junk software.

Complexity will dominate the software industry for the foreseeable future. The Retro philosophy is a simple alternative for those willing to make a clean break with legacy software. A Retro system can communicate with other systems, but it won't run much legacy software, especially proprietary software without source code. An emulation layer could be added, but doing so would defeat the purpose of a simple operating system. I think TCP/IP support is all the compatibility that's needed.

At first Retro will appeal to computer hobbyists and electronic engineers. Once the rough edges are smoothed out, it could catch on with ordinary folks who don't like waiting five minutes just to check their email (not to mention the long hours of setup and maintenance). Game programmers who take their craft seriously may also be interested. Businesses might even see a use for it, if the managers decide it's more cost-effective to carefully design software for specific needs, rather than buying off-the-shelf crap and spending countless manhours working around the bugs. Since it's not practical for businesses to make a clean break, my advice is to run Retro (and its ilk) on separate machines connected by a network. Retro is efficient enough to run on older machines that would otherwise sit idle, being too slow for the latest Microsoft bloatware (or Linux, for that matter).

I strive to avoid the extraneous. That applies even to proven technologies, if I don't need them. If my computer isn't set up for people to log in over the network, I don't want security features; they just get in the way. If I'm only running programs I wrote, I should be able to run them with full access to the hardware; I don't need protection from viruses. If I download something I don't trust, then I can run it in an isolated process, which is customary with Unix and kin. But that's not core functionality. All that's needed is the flexibility to add things like security, graphical interfaces, and distributed processing - if the need ever arises.

In programming languagues, I was misled. It's the Tower of Babel all over again. The thousands of languages in existence all fall into a handful of archetypes: Assembler, LISP, FORTRAN and FORTH represent the earliest descendants of nearly all languages. I hesitate to name a definitive "object-oriented" language, and here's why: Object-Oriented programming is just a technique, and any language will suffice, even Assembler. The complexites of fancy languages like Ada and C++ are a departure from reality -- the reality of the actual physical machine. When it all boils down, even LISP, FORTRAN and FORTH are only extensions of the machine.

I chose FORTH as the "native tongue" of Retro. LISP, FORTRAN, and other languages can be efficiently implemented as extensions of FORTH, but the reverse isn't so efficient. Theoretically all languages are equivalent, but when design time, compilation time, and complexity are accounted for, FORTH is most efficient. FORTH also translates most directly to the hardware. (In fact, FORTH has been implemented in hardware; these "stack machines" are extremely efficient.) FORTH is also the easiest language to implement from scratch - a major concern when you're trying to make a clean break. So with simplicity in mind, FORTH was the obvious choice.

I'm perfectly happy working with text only, and I go to great lengths to avoid using the standard graphical environments, which have major problems: windows, pulldown menus, and mice. Windows can't share the screen nicely; that idea is hopeless. Pulldowns are tedious. Mice get in the way of typing without reducing the need for it; all they give me is tendonitis. Their main use is for drawing.

Some of my favorite interfaces: Telix, Telegard BBS, Pine, Pico, Lynx, and ScreamTracker. All "hotkey" interfaces where you press a key or two to perform an action. Usually the important commands are listed at the bottom of the screen, or at least on a help screen. The same principles apply to graphical interfaces: use the full screen, except for a status and menu area on one edge. Resist the temptation to clutter up the screen.

As for switching between programs, the Windows methods suck; the only thing worse is Unix job control (jobs, fg, and such). The Linux method is tolerable: Alt-Arrows, Alt-F1, Alt-F2, etc. Still, things could be better: F11 and F12 cycle back and forth through all open programs; Alt-F1 assigns the currently selected program to F1, and likewise for the other function keys. Programs just won't use function keys - Control and Alt combinations are less awkward and easier to remember, besides. I'll also want a "last channel" key and a "task list" key; maybe I'll borrow those stupid Win95 keys. The Pause key will do like it says - pause the current program - and Ctrl-Pause (Break) will kill it.

One more thing: consistency. I like programs to look different so I can tell them apart, but the keys should be the same as much as possible. Keys should be configured in one place, for all programs. Finally, remember the most consistent interface, one of the few constants throughout the history of computing - the text screen and keyboard, and the teletypewriter before that. Don't overlook it.

More to come, maybe... :)

"If it's on line, it's a work in progress."

Tom Novelli, 3/4/2000