A different kind of Walter? :-)

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Dan wrote:
> Dave Wrote:
>> Seems to me there's got to be a reason for this (not having an OS implement a GC). I wonder what 
>> that would be, since now-a-days catering to application development is such a vital thing for any 
>> commercial OS?
> 
> Well, people are developing them.  The reason they aren't included by default is a mystery to me, then most OS developers have left the entire process this gigantic undocumented undescribable mess that explains why most new OS starts just give up.  I think it also explains why currently widely-used OS's still don't implement any additional features.
> 
> It's difficult, and they don't have to.
> 
> That said, I've been architecting a ring -1 program that multiplexes hardware resources without any drivers, HAL or OS underneath it; taking the exokernel principle to the farthest extreme.
> 
> My exokernel isn't even a kernel, it's just a gatekeeper.  I was trying to think of a good name for it:
> 
> Maat, Aker, St. Peter, Gatekeeper, Guardian, BlackSphere, or Garmies were the first that came to mind.

Going the route of those first couple ideas (naming after psychopomps) there's the 
possibilities Yinepu/Anpu and Wepwawet (which literally means he who opens the way). 
Actually I think that's a perfect theme for selecting a name for something like that. 
Sounds like an interesting project indeed.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls