Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Terry A. Davis

schizophrenic.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 105 posts

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#21

Post by AlecSchueler »

skissane wrote: post #11
vletrmx wrote: post #4

> While it did have some recreational value, it did not provide a product that people could use that would enrich their lives. Because providing a 'product' is the sole criterion for success? The author is missing the point and doesn't understand TempleOS.

One thing that makes TempleOS less approachable is the extreme idiosyncrasy of some of its design decisions - e.g. limiting it to 640x480 with 16 colours even though supporting higher resolution and colour depth would have been little extra work, an intentionally very garish user interface, refusing to implement any networking support for ideological reasons. It was never going to be a mainstream OS, but it might hav…

It's the idiosyncrasies that make it notable surely.

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#22

Post by AlecSchueler »

lukan wrote: post #9
vletrmx wrote: post #4

> While it did have some recreational value, it did not provide a product that people could use that would enrich their lives. Because providing a 'product' is the sole criterion for success? The author is missing the point and doesn't understand TempleOS.

"Because providing a 'product' is the sole criterion for success?" Wasn't the OS made to be used by people for real and not just as a toy? Could people use it for real? As a daily driver to get things done? (A real product) I do not think so, so what do you think what was the point of TempleOS then?

> Could people use it for real? As a daily driver to get things done?

It could be, but "getting things done" here means communicating with God, not taking zoom calls.

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#23

Post by xanderlewis »

codetrotter wrote: post #14
lukan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because providing a 'product' is the sole criterion for success?" Wasn't the OS made to be used by people for real and not just as a toy? Could people use it for real? As a daily driver to get things done? (A real product) I do not think so, so what do you think what was the point of TempleOS then?

> what was the point of TempleOS From what I’ve seen from videos where Terry was talking about TempleOS, it seems that a large part of the point of the OS and the programs that shipped with it was as a way of “talking to god”. Where he’d run a program and it would generate some random output and he said that those were words from god. I have to assume that this was very much because of his condition. Either way, a te…

> he’d run a program and it would generate some random output and he said that those were words from god. I have to assume that this was very much because of his condition.

I actually think that seems perfectly internally consistent from the perspective of someone who seriously believes in a god. If (pseudo)random numbers and therefore the output of that program aren’t controlled by god, what is?

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#24

Post by simongr3dal »

Thanks for posting. The rest of the blog is also short and sweet, I’m struggling a bit with self worth and self criticism so I found it very touching and relatable.

It’s kind of interesting how I’ve come to expect blog posts to be much longer since microblogging pretty much exists exclusively on social media.

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#25

Post by [deleted] »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #20
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may sound like the writer is implying lack of financial success is bad, but I don't think that's their intention. I think the word "product" is just a filler here - it could equally be "something" or "an executable".

What's the recreational value without an executable? Just watching his videos? Then surely the videos are the product.

[deleted]

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#26

Post by rrssh »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #20
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may sound like the writer is implying lack of financial success is bad, but I don't think that's their intention. I think the word "product" is just a filler here - it could equally be "something" or "an executable".

What's the recreational value without an executable? Just watching his videos? Then surely the videos are the product.

That's probably what they mean, only the videos have any worth.

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#27

Post by ropejumper »

YPPH wrote: post #10

Not to trivialise his achievement, but I'd be willing to wager any moderately competent systems programmer, if given 10+ years and no other commitments (work or family) could write a programming language, compiler, and real mode operating system for an x86_64 system. Side note, why were Ticketmaster hiring systems programmers writing such low level code? I grew up in the 90s/00s so missed this era of computing.

I agree.

What I like about TempleOS is that Terry wasn't afraid to make something new and unique, even though it was completely incompatible with everything else.

DolDoc is such a cool idea. Not a unique one, but you don't find many operating systems which have a shell based on that. Since the command output is in DolDoc, you can type `DIR` at the command line and get a list which expands into the whole file tree when you click on it. DolDoc also means that his games have all the images and models embedded in the code, and you can just go there and edit them.

And there are a lot of these. Sure it's clunky and weird and sort of unusable, but I appreciate it for what it is. And I think it's really awesome. Take a look at a random person's osdev project and you'll see mostly the same thing — a unix-like that tries to be compatible with POSIX and port all the utilities. TempleOS is as far from that as you can get (though definitely not unique either).

(Also, a minor correction: TempleOS is not real mode, it runs in full 64-bit mode with symmetric multiprocessing and everything. The text UI isn't the VGA text mode, it's a framebuffer that also displays graphics).

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#28

Post by frou_dh »

YPPH wrote: post #10

Not to trivialise his achievement, but I'd be willing to wager any moderately competent systems programmer, if given 10+ years and no other commitments (work or family) could write a programming language, compiler, and real mode operating system for an x86_64 system. Side note, why were Ticketmaster hiring systems programmers writing such low level code? I grew up in the 90s/00s so missed this era of computing.

TempleOS was not just a dry operating system project. It included lots of original creative media like games, music and more.

Very different to Competent Systems Programmer writing Unix Clone #983

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#29

Post by ahahahahah »

thinkingemote wrote: post #13
YPPH wrote: post #10

Not to trivialise his achievement, but I'd be willing to wager any moderately competent systems programmer, if given 10+ years and no other commitments (work or family) could write a programming language, compiler, and real mode operating system for an x86_64 system. Side note, why were Ticketmaster hiring systems programmers writing such low level code? I grew up in the 90s/00s so missed this era of computing.

The question is why more people have not done it. A bit like picassos answer to someone saying to him about his art "I could have done that!!" being "why haven't you?" I would put templeos at the same level as art in that it's the creation and life rather than the craft or utility. Or in other words there is something transcendental about the project which would go beyond (but not technically) something a competent s…

[flagged]

Re: On Terry A. Davis

#30

Post by ahahahahah »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #21
skissane wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that makes TempleOS less approachable is the extreme idiosyncrasy of some of its design decisions - e.g. limiting it to 640x480 with 16 colours even though supporting higher resolution and colour depth would have been little extra work, an intentionally very garish user interface, refusing to implement any networking support for ideological reasons. It was never going to be a mainstream OS, but it might hav…

It's the idiosyncrasies that make it notable surely.

It's not notable.
Post reply on HN