Terminology in your OS

[AndrewAPrice]

Does anyone use their own terminology or phrases in their OS that deviates from standard Unix/Mac/Windows terminology (e.g. alternative words for mount, halt, launch, etc).

I have thought of a few a want to use:
To use a drive you must saddle (mount) it, but you can still access an unsaddled drive bareback (low-level access). When you're done you 'jettison' a drive to eject/unmount.

A server or driver that is not responding to requests as expected has gone AWOL (not performing it's duty), where as a non-responding program is fighting it's own gremlins (hanging), but if it tries to do something it shouldn't the program has gone haywire (exception or illegal request) and it must be turned to fertiliser (quit) then it will be feeding the ants (when you try to communicate with a dead program).

I think I should have themes in my UI, and you chose between different terminology; Horses, Gardening, Military, Unix.

[Troy Martin]

I'm planning on using my own 32-bit hexadecimal signals to pass to a "kill"-style program when I do up a multiple program suspension system (I posted a bit about it in the TBOS 1.0.0 topic.) Here are a few and their POSIX-ish names:

Code: Select all

SIGKILL = 0xDEADBEEF    ; "Dead Beef" - Kills and overwrites code with zeros
SIGCONT = 0xC0DEF001    ; "Code Fool" - Restores a stopped program
SIGSTOP = 0xD1EDEA51    ; "Died Easy" - Suspends a program

[Craze Frog]

Create new process: spoon()

[xenos]

I guess using a custom terminology makes communication quite difficult if users have different themes... I already see people in this forum complaining about their kernels fighting gremlins when they try to jettison a drive There are good reasons for a common language and a common terminology if you want other people to understand what your OS is doing, although an own terminology might be fancy...

XenOS.Move(0xBED);
XenOS.Sleep(8 * 60 * 60);

[piranha]

I agree, jettisoning a drive sounds like it's gonna come flying out of the computer.

If a process tries to kill task 0 (the kernel), it's mutiny.

I have the unix concept of a root user, but that has been renamed to 'god'.

When the kernel kills tasks it "slaughters" them.

The login prompt is "Who are you?" Cause I was listening to The Who at the time...

Edit: If eventually, my OS gets to the point where it should have a "self-check"/"self-fix"/"troubleshooter" I'm gonna call that program Jesus.

-JL

[Troy Martin]

You ought to be nice to others and replace "god" with other names and "Jesus" with other prophets. But what do I care? I'm an atheist!

[01000101]

GUTS() - Give Up Time Slice (used for my full-cooperative multitasking). =)

[neon]

I personally rather stick with common terminology. My real system is already complex enough; don't want to add more confusion to it

[AJ]

How about DoS attack: Rage Against The Machine

I agree with neon - I stick to conventional terminology. I think that the only exception to this is if your system is designed for a computer novice (in which case, they are probably using a commercial OS anyway ) and you can be sure that your new terminology improves clarity. Even in this case, you can very often display the jargon followed by an explanation, or a link to an explanation.

Cheers,
Adam

[Velko]

To kill a process: execute()

[jal]

I have a bit of the opposite problem, I have fairly unconventional, non-POSIX stuff, and use traditional names like 'process' and 'thread' anyway. It's bound to confuse people...


JAL

[Brynet-Inc]

Let's be different for the sake of being different!

What a waste a time, inventing new terminology only serves to confuse new developers and users alike.

In the case of our dear Messiah, I think subconsciously he wants to join a rodeo..