Modularization and hierarchy in a family of operating systems

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the design philosophy used in the construction of a family of operating systems. It is shown that the concepts of module and level do not coincide in a hierarchy of functions. Family members can share much software as a result of the implementation of run-time modules at the lowest system level.

REFERENCES

• 1: Edsger W. Dijkstra, The structure of the “THE”-multiprogramming system, Communications of the ACM, v.11 n.5, p.341-346, May 1968 [doi>10.1145/363095.363143]
• 2: Flon, L. Program design with abstract data types. Dep. of Computer Sci., Carnegie-Mellon U., Pittsburgh, Pa., June 1975.
• 3: Integrated design, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.8 n.9, p.64-66, September 1973
• 4: Barbara H. Liskov, The design of the Venus operating system, Communications of the ACM, v.15 n.3, p.144-149, March 1972 [doi>10.1145/361268.361272]
• 5: Neumann, P.G., et al. On the design of a provably secure operating system. Proc. IRIA Workshop on Protection in Operating Systems, Paris 1974.
• 6: Parnas, D.L. On a "buzzword": hierarchical structure. Proc. IFIPS Cong. 74, Stockholm. North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1974.
• 7: D. L. Parnas, On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules, Communications of the ACM, v.15 n.12, p.1053-1058, Dec. 1972 [doi>10.1145/361598.361623]
• 8: Parnas, D.L., and Siewiorek, D.P. Use of the concept of transparency in the design of hierarchically structured systems. Dep. of Computer Sci., Carnegie-Mellon U., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Sep. 1972).
• 9: William Robert Price, Implications of a virtual memory mechanism for implementing protection in a family of operating systems, 1973

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
address space, data type, incremental machine design, module, virtual memory