Yes. My ideas have some similarities with Genode but also many significant differences. For example:

- The design is separate from the implementation. The kernel of the system will be specified and simple enough that multiple implementations are possible; the other parts of the system can also be specified like that and be made, and the implementations from different sources can be used together. (Components can also be replaced.)

- The ABI will be defined for each instruction set, and this will be usable same for any implementation that uses that instruction set; the system calls will be the same, etc.

- The design is not intended for use with C++ (although C++ can be used). It is intended for use with C, and for use with its own programming language called "Command, Automation, and Query Language". Assembly language, Ada, etc are also possible, although the core portable design supports C, but would be written in such a way that the abstract system interfaces are defined in a way that is not specific to any programming language.

- All I/O (including the current date/time) must be done using capabilities. A process that has no capabilities is automatically terminated since it cannot perform any I/O (including in future, since it can only receive new capabilities by receiving a message from an existing capability). (An uninterruptable wait for one of an empty set of capabilities also terminates a process, and is the usual way to do so.)

- It does not use or resemble POSIX. (However, a POSIX compatibility library can be made, in order to compile and run POSIX-based programs.)

- It does not use XML, JSON, etc. It has its own "common data format" (which is a binary format), used for most files, and for command-line interface, and some GUI components, etc.

- The character set is Extended TRON Code. The common data format, keyboard manager, etc all support the Extended TRON character set; specialized 8-bit sets are also possible for specialized uses. (This is not a feature at the kernel level though; the kernel level doesn't care about character encoding at all.)

- Objects don't have "methods" at the kernel level, and messages do not have types. A message consists of a sequence of bytes and/or capabilities, and has a target capability to send the message to.

- Similar than the "actor model", programs can create new objects, send their addresses in messages through other capabilities, and can wait for capabilities and receive messages from capabilities. (A "capability" is effectively an opaque address of an object, similar to a file descriptor, but with less operations available than POSIX file descriptors allow.) It works somewhat similar to the socketpair function in POSIX to create new objects, with SCM_RIGHTS to send access to other objects.

- A new process will receive an "initial message", which contains bytes and/or capabilities; it should include at least one capability, since otherwise the process cannot perform any I/O.

- There is no "component tree".

- Emulation is possible (this can be done by programs separate from the kernel). In this way, programs designed for this operating system but for x86 computers can also run on RISC-V computers and vice-versa, and other combinations (including supporting instructions that are only available in some versions of instruction sets; e.g. programs using BMI2 instructions work even on a computer that doesn't support those instructions). Of course, this will make the program less efficient, so native code is preferable, although it does make it possible to run programs that don't.

- Due to emulation, network transparency, etc, a common set of conventions for message formats will be made so that they can use the same endianness, integer size, etc on all computer types. This will allow programs on different types of computers (or on the same computer but emulated) to communicate with each other.

- A process can wait for one or more capabilities, as well as send/receive messages through them. You can wait for any objects that you have access to.

- The file system does not use directory structures, file names, etc. It uses a hypertext file system. A file can have multiple streams (identified by 32-bit numbers), and each stream can contain bytes as well as links to other files.

- Transactions/locks that involve multiple objects at once should be possible. In this way, a process reading one or more files can avoid interference from writers.

- Better interaction between objects between command-line and GUI, than most existing systems.

- Proxy capabilities (which you can use C, or other programming languages, including the interpreted "Command, Automation, and Query Language") can be defined. This is useful for many purposes, including network transparency, fault simulation, etc. If a program requires permission to access something, you can program it to modify the data being given, to log accesses, to make it revocable, etc. (For example, if a program expects audio input, the user can provide capability for microphone or for an existing audio file etc)

- There are "window indicators", which can be used for e.g. audio volume, network, permissions, data transfer between programs, etc.

- The default user interface is not designed to use fancy graphics (a visual style like Microsoft Windows 1.0, or like X Athena widgets, is good enough).

- USB is no good. (This does not mean that you cannot add drivers to support USB (and other hardware), but the system is not designed to depend on USB, so avoiding USB is possible if the computer hardware supports it, without any loss of software functionality.)

- System resources are not the same like Sculpt; they are set up differently, because I think that many things would be better done differently

- As much as possible, everything in the system is operable by keyboard. Mouse is also useful for many things, although keyboard is also usable for any functions; a mouse is optional (but recommended).

- There are many other significant differences, too.