Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:22 am
by LarsG
8O Hehe, there's no way I'm going to trawl through the linux sourcecode... Even if my C skills weren't so damn poor, I wouldn't do it...
A book on the subject might help though... Still, I don't think it would be any harm in discussing the fundamentals, and different aspects and parts of an OS.. (that is, if someone here knows anything about it, and want to share their thoughts)
-Lars
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:41 pm
by dmoc
I definately would not say it *isn't* worth discussing, by all means do so. But as someone who has studied os design, if Dreglor wants to learn then there are probably a lot more informative (and knowledgeable) places to go. To give you (or anyone else) an idea of how big the discussion could get here is a contents page from a typical reference book (some would say *the* reference book):
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubboo ... ntent.html
There are various websites and usenet groups, eg, comp.os.research.
Where PB is concerned, and once Dreglor has some background info, it would be a good learning experience to try to emulate some of the basic OS techniques, eg, task/ memory management. PB would provide a safe environment for this rather than trying to hack together an actual OS kernel. Next step, much more interesting, would be to use PB to create a virtual OS. It might even be useful, look at the various DOS and Windows emulators/ virtualisations.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:37 pm
by Dreglor
well there are alot of things i want to learn in my own free time, and os's are one of them
but doning one wouldn't be a very easy
as dmoc pointed out you most likely *WILL* need a book to learn how frist before you do anything
now i do have some asm and c skills but i dought i even get based the boot sector >_>
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:13 am
by Doobrey
Fred wrote:Shouldn't a real OS be coded in ASM ?
What? ASM is for girls...
Real OS developers code in pure binary
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:27 am
by Dreglor
hehe, is it even possible to code directly in binary!?
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:36 am
by freedimension
Dreglor wrote:hehe, is it even possible to code directly in binary!?
Sure it is, or how do you think was the first programming language written?
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:05 pm
by spangly
Dreglor wrote:hehe, is it even possible to code directly in binary!?
I used to code in Z80 on the spectrum without the aid of an assembler 8O
I could tell you the hex values for just about any z80 instruction
21 00 40 ld hl,16384
Yes, I am slightly insane!
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:36 pm
by Saboteur
spangly wrote:I used to code in Z80 on the spectrum without the aid of an assembler 8O
I could tell you the hex values for just about any z80 instruction
21 00 40 ld hl,16384
Yes, I am slightly insane!
Ups...
I only remember
C9 ret
0 nop
When we'll have PureSpectrum Basic?
Here ya go...
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:09 pm
by Hi-Toro
Someone asked about this on the Bl**z forums a few weeks ago... here are the links I posted:
----
Writing Your Own Toy OS, parts 1, 2 and 3:
www.linuxgazette.com/issue77/krishnakumar.html
www.linuxgazette.com/issue79/krishnakumar.html
www.linuxgazette.com/issue82/raghu.html
[Correction to part 1]
www.linuxgazette.com/issue84/dashti.html
Misc
nocturnalnetwork.com/os.htm
www.osdever.net/
www.linuxgazette.com/issue85/mahoney.html
Create a minimal Linux-based OS:
linuxfromscratch.org/
-----------------
See also this thread on these very forums, complete with Mark's old BlitzOS...
www.blitzbasic.com/bbs/posts.php?topic=15774
And there's even (if you scroll down past the Ukrainian/Russian?) what appears to be a little crude BlitzOS developer documentation here!
http://www.humgat.kiev.ua:8100/~kittle/ ... /0397.html
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 2:44 am
by Shannara
I hate to bring this back up, but I have to know.
Why the heck is PB not suitable on making a OS? Fred mentioned why not use ASM, was that a joke?
I mean, the PB syntax gets converted into ASM before compiling, right? So it would be possible to make an OS in PB, right?
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:38 am
by plouf
because PB creates code suitable to run under an existing OS
(Windows,Linux,AMigaOS) an OS should run without anythink else
it is possible to wirte a PB syntax compatible compiler to generate
code who will run in boot up ,but internal it will have much more stuff
(think that drivers should be build in etc) (and no API calls since no OS running
)
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:47 am
by LarsG
I believe it's possible to write an x86 OS using PB..
You'd have to code the foundation in ASM though.. (memory management, file-system etc... if you're not going to use an existing base for this)
and your own drivers and stuff.. but I believe it can be done...
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:38 pm
by Shannara
Well, I was thinking... we need a bootstrap and access to a few registers, not to mention the screen interrups, and your set. Can code from there. But since alot of PB's commands are from pre-existing os commands, that might be hard to emulate, unless you code them from scratch in PB or internal ASM, right?
If so..... If it is possible for Fred to give us a list of what commands call what, we could "emulate" such in pure asm via pb... only the commands that are needed... I think it would be possible.. but why? Because once all or most of the commands are implimented, you can use PB to build the rest of the system...
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:34 pm
by Dreglor
well you would have to have the complier chunk out a asm file for you to edit so it can be compatible then you complie that in fasm and have it chunk out a .com file
and this is after you got the boot file and things you need before letting pb do the major programs
i think with a libarys and some conversion programs i sure you can get any pb program to work in a diffrent os