Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.development > #9148

Re: New OS opportunities?

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/01/2016 21:34, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:48:22 +0000
> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/01/2016 18:24, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:37:52 +0000
>>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/2016 23:07, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Just a quick comment on new OS opportunities ...
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears we have at least two newer methods of
>>>>> creating an OS from existing components:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) libSDL and OpenGL
>>>>
>>>> AFAICS that would require there to be a host OS.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what back end libSDL needs, but if it's like most code,
>>> then it could use an OS library, like those which you cited, or be
>>> rewritten for direct use on hardware.  I'm sure more than a few
>>> people have "failed" or stalled OS projects that could be used.
>>
>> AFAICT it needs an underlying OS, as is true of any normal library.
>
> I'm not sure why you're always fixated on needing a host OS.

I am not 'fixated' on needing a host OS but it seemed to me that the 
main problem with your two suggestions was that unless there was an 
existing OS they would not work. (That's fine if that's what you want.)

> Unix and POSIX OSes are coded in C and use the exact same C
> libraries that they host.  This isn't a catch-22.  Yes, it
> is a bootstrap, porting, and/or cross-compiling issue.  I.e.,
> Linux can produce it's own kernel, DOS probably could too.
> And, you're well aware of compiler flags that can eliminate
> dependence on host specific code, or allow code to be
> cross-compiled.  E.g., I coded my OS using C and portions of
> the C library intended for another OS ...
>
> Think of doing this as a dynamic process.  You do a bit of
> work either porting or filling in the back-end, develop,
> re-work, which allows you to do more, implement more, repeat
> until working.  At some point, you must produce standalone
> bootable code, and then develop the ability to execute other
> code.

Yes, though isn't there a big transition from using Clib calls and 
syscalls in order to get the existing OS to make things happen, to 
having to do the following?

1. handling interrupts yourself
2. controlling hardware directly (needing an IO subsystem design, and 
drivers for each device type)
3. separating address spaces and running multiple tasks

It is not just a case of handling system calls. You would also need to 
mimic certain features of the OS that once was the host.

One of the worst potential examples of that: Imagine that you started 
from a Windows host. Some software installed on it might expect scores 
or even hundreds of system calls to work as they do in Windows. And to 
implement those system calls adequately you might need a bunch of 
structures that Windows uses such as a basic Windows registry. And you 
might need to pre-populate that registry with many settings that Windows 
provides. And, if so, you need to find out what those settings are.

That said, there may be more mileage if you start from an old Unix, as 
long as it could run Node.js or LibSDL etc. That could have fewer system 
calls and simpler structures to replicate.

> Languages were once coded in assembly, rewritten in the host
> language, and then bootstrapped via the assembly executable.

Yes. And I agree that something similar /could/ be done to develop an 
OS. I was going to say that it could be a lot of work. But, I suppose, 
that's true of any route to an independent OS.

James

Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

New OS opportunities? Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-22 18:07 -0500
  Re: New OS opportunities? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:37 +0000
    Re: New OS opportunities? Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-23 13:24 -0500
      Re: New OS opportunities? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:48 +0000
        Re: New OS opportunities? Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 16:34 -0500
          Re: New OS opportunities? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:48 +0000
            Re: New OS opportunities? Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-28 19:30 -0500
          Re: New OS opportunities? "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 23:00 -0800

csiph-web