[plt-scheme] Question about scheme os for information appliances (phones)

From: Steven Jenkins (jenkinss at etsu.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 5 11:08:56 EST 2002

That's an interesting example.  I've often thought that the 'appliance'
markets (not just phones, but firewalls, web servers, file/print
servers, etc) would generate a demand  for this type of solution.  But
as I look at a lot of the 'modular, extensible' OS projects of the 90s,
many seem to have wound down without any adoption or product per se.

For example, is Flux still being actively worked on?  (Matthew?)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shriram Krishnamurthi" <sk at cs.brown.edu>
To: "plt scheme" <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: [plt-scheme] Question about scheme os for information
appliances (phones)

>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> I think TUNESs problem is pretty obvious: it's a lot easier to create
> documents than code.  I have a feeling some people thought/think that
> if a bazaar can create Linux, it can create TUNES.  Linux solved a
> problem that urgently needed solving, so it had the benefit of being
> the first mover.  (Or second, if you count Minix, and depending on
> whether you think the first or second mover wins. <-;)  I see no
> similar justification for TUNES.
> It could be that you've hit on a good platform badly in need of
> support.  But it seems pretty hard to beat Symbian -- it looks like
> the (now shut) window of opportunity was for building the prototype
> that Symbian would adopt as their starting point.  Besides, Be tried
> to position themselves (and the BeOS infrastructure) there and lost,
> despite having all technology in place, so the problem must have some
> hidden difficulties.
> Wow -- be.com is itself now up for sale.
> Shriram

Posted on the users mailing list.