rdt 2006.07.03 The purpose of this page is to discuss the advisability, feasability, justificaton, and design of an OS that uses/utilizes Tcl/Tk as the only scripting paradigm. Yes, what I mean is only. That is not even have a /bin/sh on the system. This does not preclude the use of binary applications just that all scripting would be done utilizing pure Tck/Tk.
Why would one want to do this?
If this is a feasible, justifiable project, one could envision Tcl/Tk OS on: Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and/or NetBSD.
I suppose one would begin by booting (on Linux 2.6) an initramfs containing a statically linked tclkit and some tcl scripts. One could have a /lib/system.so that permitted Tcl to access the kernel by such calls as:
sys <call_number> <arguments>
and permit all standard /bin & /sbin commands to become tcl scripts. You probably would want a compatibility layer to make those calls so that all the /sbin & /bin scripts would be cross platform on the above mentioned Free/Open Source systems.
If this progressed, one could envision the modular Xorg utilizing the Whim window manager (or a derivative thereof) as the desktop.
slebetman: Etlinux ( http://www.etlinux.org ) is a big step in this direction. It doesn't even have a binary init. They've re-written init in tcl to reduce memory space. In fact, I believe on a bare install of etlinux, the kernel and tclsh might be the only binary executables on the machine. The end result of using pure Tcl is that they currently boast the smallest memory footprint of any linux distribution out there - 2MB RAM + 2MB HD space.
rdt: Interesting project, but what I don't understand is that the home page (as given above) says near the bottom: "Sat Jan 15 2000: Etlinux 1.2.1 is out!" and near the top it says: "Tue Mar 16 2005 : Etlinux 1.1.3 is out!" :)
slebetman: They maintain 2 stable branches of Etlinux, both current (both kernel 2.0.38). The difference is in the glibc library used. Etlinux 1.1 is compiled on libc5 allowing it to run on 2MB of RAM. Etlinux 1.2 is compiled on libc6 which requires a minimum of 4MB RAM. Etlinux 1.2 is the main branch with new developments back-ported to 1.1. I guess they still maintain 1.1 because there are still people out there (like me) with 2MB CPU boards. Plus, without it they can't boast to have a 2MB minimum requirement ;-)
rdt: I see. Thanks for the explanation. Are you part of the development or just a user?
slebetman: Just a user. Actually not even a user :-P I have a couple of Advantech & ICOP PC104 386 CPU boards with 4MB RAM each and an 8MB DiskOnModule. Several years ago (around 2002) I was looking at the possibility of installing Linux on them when I stumbled accross the etlinux site. It looked perfect except that it requires a linux host as a development machine and I didn't have one. I did however recommended the distro to an ICOP sales rep who had clients looking to squeeze Linux on ICOP boards and he had some success with etlinux.
List pure tcl/tk applications/scripts that can be utilized here:
Core Processes / Daemons:
Console:
X Windowing:
Sound:
Is anyone (other than myself: rdt) interested in this or does everyone else think it is a stupid idea?
SRIV I'm interested. For past projects, I've created 1.72mb boot floppies containing a 2.4 kernel (2.6 no longer contains an integrated bootloader) and a static tclsh and my app scripts. That's it! That's about as minimalistic as you can get. My personal workstation is mostly Tcl & Tk apps. I can get by with a handfull of essential binaries.
dzach I'd be interested if sound (and snack for that matter) could work without problems.
LES and his bucket of cold water on 2006-07-05: I don't think it's a good idea because none of the motives presented are good enough and there are plenty of things that need to be made or improved and are a lot more important than an "OS". Some of them are even required before such "OS" is viable:
rdt 2006.07.05 - Thanks LES for your opinion. From what I've seen of Whim, it looks just about right for what I want to use as a window manager. And as for looks of the Tile thingies, I think I prefer the Raw Tcl/Tk look, myself - must be something wrong with me, huh?
SRIV 2006.07.05 - I dont use tile at the moment either, I like the raw speed. Whim has all the features I want, as I use it all day every day. Whim was designed for embedded insdustrial use, where the system designer would customize the wm on the fly without compiling. I combine it with a statically compiled Xvesa binary to make a minimal Linux gui OS for custom applications. It may not be a "full feature" desktop experience, but it fits the design goals. With a little effort, a more useful Tcl/Tk OS could be developed. All someone needs to do it set the goal and do it. I'm completely satisfied with my results.
George Peter Staplin 2006.07.05 - I think Tcl/Tk is ready for many things, but pleasing graphics junkies (like myself) isn't one of them yet (until my Tk9 lives). What features do you want in Whim? When is the patch going to reach my inbox? Why do we have to recreate a shell environment and all that baggage to be taken seriously? Answer: we don't. I've created a graphical shell written in Tcl/Tk that uses megaimage and I think it's a better idea than creating yet another vt100-based shell. rdt 2006.07.06 : And where is this "graphical shell" George Peter Staplin?
rdt What goals would you need to see / like for it to be "usable" for you, SRIV?
SRIV Just glancing at my Whim menu, I just need a few more Tk apps, like a web browser based on Tkhtml 3, a photo editor, a CAD app (possibly an enhanced tdcad), a decent PIM (ajb has started a nice one, should be done soon). With that, I'd have a at least a pretty descent internet appliance. I have a tk based file manager, calcualtor, chat, editor, etc. But even though I like the concept of a Tcl/Tk OS, I also appreciate the fact that all my apps run well on Windows too. I'm ok having some Linux binaries to fill in the gaps. Hence my current workstation is Slackware Linux, installed without KDE or Gnome, using a tclkit, whim.kit and a bunch of other kits to round out my apps. I love it.
SEH 20060706 -- CAD: tried Ayam? [L1 ]. What mail client do you use? SRIV Currently webmail. [L2 ] is a modified version of tdcad to work with tcl/tk >= 8.4. It still needs improving. The dxf importer needs work to properly import arcs. The core app should be recoded to work internally in dxf format.
TP I once played with a single-floppy Linux system (muLinux) and released Tcl-To-Go for it. It actually required three floppies: 1) the muLinux kernel + minimal utilities, 2) a tiny X11 server, 3) the Tcl-To-go disk which had a Tcl 8.0 tclsh and wish interpreters plus 35 Tcl/Tk applications. See the Tcl-To-Go page, and follow the link to the README.
(You may also be trying to find out On What Platforms Does Tcl Run)
MDD: One system to consider is Puppy Linux. It's pretty close to what you're looking for. At least it would not be a bad starting point. The main page for it is http://www.puppyos.com/
Sarnold 07/07/2006 I think that FileRunner is a great candidate for a File Manager in such an OS.
User's Shell:
rdt 2006.07.08 - Does tclsh need changes in order to be used as the user's shell? Could one just enhance the unknown proc such that any non-tcl command would be looked for as an external command in $env(PATH) ? Seems like I've read something about that on this wiki, but can't seem to find it now. Ahh, see Is tclsh or wish suitable as a login shell
rdt I see that use of tclsh interactively, automatically supplies the command to exec if it is not a tcl command. Nice.
rdt It seems to me as if Is tclsh or wish suitable as a login shell is discussing the use of tclsh to get a syntax similar to that of sh (pipes, globbing, & such) and perhaps the thing is to use a different syntax (csh & tcsh did, afterall) since we are talking about tcl here.