headers
Massimo Dentico | 20 Mar 2007 02:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: Tunes

In a private e-mail, Tom Novelli wrote:

> Haven't heard from you in a while...

Sorry Tom, this was a quite long "in a while".

> Are you still interested in the Tunes CMS?
>
> I'm thinking about future developments...
> (i.e. How would TUNES solve these problems, ideally?)

Well, this is *exactly* the problem: I constantly
end up thinking about TUNES; in particular, regarding
your current effort, about Tunes Distributed Publishing [1]
(TDP from now on) and how much it is *different* from the
current Web.

I had begun to write a long e-mail to you at least four
times. Each time I stop, thinking that what I wrote will
discourage your current effort.

"To boostrap FULL TUNES we need FULL TUNES", I think this
summarize well the reasons of our long paralysis.

So, there are no shortcut: we need to approach TUNES
one small step a time. And please: be NOT discouraged!

When time permits, I will begin a series of e-mails (one
is in preparation, subject: current mark-up languages and
a proposal for a quite different solution) with critics
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tom Novelli | 20 Mar 2007 04:03
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Tunes

Massimo, welcome back!

On 3/19/07, Massimo Dentico <m.dentico <at> virgilio.it> wrote:

> > (i.e. How would TUNES solve these problems, ideally?)
>
> Well, this is *exactly* the problem: I constantly
> end up thinking about TUNES; in particular, regarding
> your current effort, about Tunes Distributed Publishing [1]
> (TDP from now on) and how much it is *different* from the
> current Web.
>
> I had begun to write a long e-mail to you at least four
> times. Each time I stop, thinking that what I wrote will
> discourage your current effort.

I know.  It was discouraging criticism that brought this project to a
standstill.  Thank you for your concern.  The CMS is a "temporary"
expedient... I'm finding it helpful, but it does leave A LOT to be
desired.  Feel free to bash it all you want :-)

TDP hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.  Right now it would be
really nice to have a general mechanism for version control and
annotations.  I know what I want, but I don't have the answers, so I'm
looking to someone with more expertise in this area.

What would TDP look like?  Something like an XML DOM tree, without the
stupid markup, perhaps?  "Links" would be references to objects,
ranging in size from single letters to book-length.  But would you
reference a certain version "frozen in time", or the current version?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lendvai, Attila 101. | 12 Jan 2002 11:28

RE: TUNES

:: >>> if you're willing to write a system that adds features for other
:: >>> browsers without sacrificing compatibility [with CLI 
:: browsers] *snip*
:: >> Well, thats quiet simple with an intro-page, which has a 
:: link for [...]
:: > Just do it - you seem to know better about it than I, anyway.
:: > If you don't have write access to the CVS yet, just fill in the
:: > membership form and ask an account to root <at> bespin.org.
:: Is that a Joke? I mean you don't know me, and I didn't even tell you 
:: that im here to overtake the project and cripple it, by order of his 
:: billyness ;-)
:: Also I don't really know anything about programming and what 
:: exactly is 
:: a CVS?
:: May I now add my own homepage to the project?

i belive in that people dont do harm without any point... and i mean
_without any_! noone would even start arguing with you, no fame (low
trafic site), no nothing. simply a backup would be rewritten and you
removed from the users...

cvs is code versioning system. a server that keeps track of changes made
to files... you check out the cvs tree, make your local changes and then
check in. it can be done by many people simultaneously.

:: well I would write a new faq, and put it into the 
:: introduction/welcome 
:: part of the homepage, and then use the old faq as a base to 
:: grow from in 
:: the documentation.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ken Evitt | 29 Apr 1999 04:28

TUNES

>I propose the common goal is this, first to define a framework that
>defines concepts.  Basically something that has at the
>very least the exact same GOALS as Brian's arrow system (myabe his is the
>solution, maybe not, we don't know yet but the more I read the nicer it
>looks).

So the primary goal of the Tunes Project is now to define a complete
epistemological theory? I don't think you could define a framework to handle
concepts that could be implemented on a computer--because the set of
concepts is not closed, there are concepts that are not defined in terms of
other concepts--many that cannot be reduced to more fundamental
concepts--because concepts are fundamentally based on percepts. Somewhere
among concepts there are concepts that can only be defined ostensively--that
can only be percieved. I think your plan suffers from the fact that you try
and seperate theory and practice--you want to formalize a system to
represent ideas--but how exactly would you do it and how the hell would it
work? And why do you need this framework and not merely a fully reflective
architecture? Do you need to write an AI, universal meta-translator and a
magic box to make computing fundamentally better?

>The plan to me looks like this;
>Once we have that, we have a way of the computer understanding something
>like an API or any program, and with that understanding it can do things
>like verify the program function, glue API's together automagically etc.
>Once we have the specification down in stone, we can try to impliement it.
>Once that's impliented using currently available tools on an existing OS
>(probably linuux since most of us have PCs and linux has lot's of good
>tools regarding language etc.).  Once that is working we might want to
>design meaty OS chunks with our system, things like filesystems,
>schedulers, a sort of specification of the hardware we are working on (so
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (External | 4 Apr 1996 19:19
Picon

Re: Tunes

Dear Tunespeople

>>  spc <at> gate.net wrote:-
  It might be anachronistic of me, but I tend to want to look at the low
level code sometimes, as that may be the only way to solve a particularly
nasty problem (in porting joe to QNX, I ended up having to look at the
generated machine code to see that the frame pointer was being trashed
somehow and tracking it back to the problem).  Have you ever SEEN code
output from a compiler (say, like GCC)?  It's not readable by any standards. 
The Unix weenies tend to say "Well, assembly isn't for humans."  
<<

Precisely. You cannot build an OS using bricks made of shit, and that 
unfortunately seems to be what most non-assembly programmers are 
trying to do! I believe that what we should do is FIRST cut 
everything to the bone, define the minimum (core) of "symbolic 
assembly language" instructions that we need (some of which might 
appear strangely "high level"!!), implement some sort of microkernel,
THEN define our "HLL" goals and system considerations, [e.g. pre-
emptive multitasking, polymorphism, encapsulation..] and go for it! 
Ultimately we would have lower levels that are completely transparent 
to high-level weenies, and that are readily legible and modifiable 
should real human beings want to fix things. 
[Or am I in a minority of one?]

JVS
Permalink | Reply |
headers
spc | 6 Apr 1996 01:43
Favicon

Re: Tunes

On some network somewhere in cyberspace, Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk transmitted:
> 
> Precisely. You cannot build an OS using bricks made of shit, and that 
> unfortunately seems to be what most non-assembly programmers are 
> trying to do! I believe that what we should do is FIRST cut 
> everything to the bone, define the minimum (core) of "symbolic 
> assembly language" instructions that we need (some of which might 
> appear strangely "high level"!!), implement some sort of microkernel,
> THEN define our "HLL" goals and system considerations, [e.g. pre-
> emptive multitasking, polymorphism, encapsulation..] and go for it! 
> Ultimately we would have lower levels that are completely transparent 
> to high-level weenies, and that are readily legible and modifiable 
> should real human beings want to fix things. 
> [Or am I in a minority of one?]
> 
  No, there's at least two of us here.  

  -spc (You need a solid foundation if you wish to build anything 
	significant ... )
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane