The name is Icelandic for "pragmatic operating system".

The idea here is to be rather original in cli and shell syntax. I don't want to be another UNIX, DOS, Windows, BeOS, OS/2, or whatever else. Also, the system is meant to be stable and secure beyond what most would consider reasonable, but to do so without sacrificing usability. My OS will be 64bit only.

So far, I know that I want to use the OpenBFS. I know that I want to have all processes be associated with a user id, a process id, and a filesystem id. The idea with a filesystem id is that each package downloaded would be in its own filesystem-within-file. The executables can only interact with things within that filesystem while the executable is running. If a user wants to get data out of the filesystem, they would only be able to do so through either the fslook command or the fslookgui application. This also means that applications would be bundled with all necessary dependencies.

The command line world would be a little different from that, and resemble UNIX in many more ways. I wouldn't use the UNIX file hierarchy, but the idea of having many single purpose and single function tools that have short name appeals to me a lot. The startup sequence for the OS would also be UNIX-like: boot loader -> kernel -> init -> getty -> login -> shell. I am thinking of encrypting passwords with 4096 bit AES. User directories would also be encrypted in such a manner.

These are all goals. I have no idea when, if ever, I will reach them.
:: edit :: but I know that I will be asking losethos for a lot of help along the way

I can help on some things. I didn't have to deal with many issues in my operating system because I chose to make it simple. LoseThos is somewhat of a toy -- it's not meant as a primary operating system. It has no security, for example. I'll help with whatever I can, though.

Some people have mentioned "handles", like Windows. You mentioned "ids". This is not helpful to you, but I just use the address of a record -- address of a task record, address of a fileaccess record, etc. All tasks in LoseThos use the same address map. If this is not the case, handles are probably needed.

I thought a bit about what you said here. I think that if I use the start and end of the filesystem that would suit my purposes for a file system ID. As for the user id and process id, these would resemble the Linux uid/pid idea. Unlike Linux/UNIX, user permissions are inherited by the user who creates him. The user who creates the user in question can further reduce the permission set. This eliminates groups and gids.

Ohhh! You're talking about numbers for users and groups or whatever that can be stored in config files, for example. Windows has "handles" which you get when opening a file or requesting a graphic object. For things which are temporary, handles are used. I use address of structures for my handles. For threads, my handles are just the address of the task record.

Long story short... ignore me, I thought you were talking about handles when you said "ids".

It's ok. I am not very talented at explaining my ideas.

Ok, so I have been banging this idea around on #ada @ freenode. People have been somewhat receptive there. This was another thing that would be a large departure from the norm. Instead of using C, C++, ObjC or some other language, I was going to write my OS in ASM and Ada. At first, I struggled as to whether or not this would even be possible. I got in touch with _Lucretia_ and he told me that it would be. I would have to make a choice. Choice A: port the Ada runtime to bare hardware. Choice B: compile an Ada Cross Compiler that has a zero footprint runtime. I am going to use choice B as it is more straight forward, and where needed I can code in parts of the runtime that I may or may not need.

So... maybe in about 2 or 3 years I will have some of the most basic of basic parts of my idea worked out...