Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Not Quite Mainstream OSes => Topic started by: Hawkuletz on 22 April 2003, 01:14
-
Can be found here (http://www.hostileencounter.com/sol_os/index.html)
It's *very* small, quite simple to develop for, is fast and is completely written in ASM.
I myself written a small app for it myself.. It took me a few hours.
On the top of the page, meaning Hostile Encounter (http://www.hostileencounter.com) you can find a game written completely in ASM as well. Unfortunatelly for w$nd$ws, but I think some of you will still be able to try it.
Both these projects should prove to you that ASM programming is still of use.
Waiting for your comments,
Hawk.
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkuletz ]
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkuletz ]
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkuletz ]
-
I guess this means we are all SOL.
HAHAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!
no no wait....
Marketing the OS will see you SOL!
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
Porting the OS leaves programmers SOL!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA rOFL!!!!!
-
Hmm! That SOL stands for the name of the company supporting the system, that is Solar Software. From what I've seen arount this forum you're pretty good at making fun of others.. Are you as good at making programs? Or operating systems? One person said around here that a 'decent' (I wonder, what would decent mean to him?) loader would took several months to accomplish. Yeah, right, if you need to learn programming first, perhaps it would take months. Or worse. But if you have some knowledge about the way computers really work it's not that hard, nor that time consuming.
You're no less than the guy who got the idea of writing an OS. He started with the name. And some weird and strange impressions of what it should contain. But you can't see more than him since instead of looking at the source code of the program, or at least try it to see how it works you're just making fun of a name.
Another point: MENUET is listed on this site. It is another OS completely written in ASM. What more could you ask for? I just wanted to prove the fact that it is POSSIBLE and NOT THAT HARD to write a complete OS in ASM. Try MENUET if SOL OS is too funny a name to even consider runing it then tell me what you think about ASM OS programming.
-
Hey Hawkuletz, don't get psyjax wrong. I don't believe that he was making fun of you or the outcome of your effort. I'm sure that you have invested a respectable amount of time and effort to this project. ;)
I'm not a programmer or a software engineer and above all I don't know how to program in ASM. I appreciate your effort however. (http://smile.gif)
-
Mmmmmmmm...if we could get games on that thing...it would be awesome! Port Quake I or something...the fastest quake in the world...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkuletz:
One person said around here that a 'decent' (I wonder, what would decent mean to him?) loader would took several months to accomplish.
And he was correct. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. A bunch of hacks is not a boot loader in my book.
[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: TheQuirk ]
-
I program in C and knoe some 68k ASM. Never touched the stuff after Apple swithced to PPC. Just never suited my needs, especially since the grafix blitter I use is already written in pure ASM and very well optimized to PPC code.
I don't program on x86's. Dabled in it a bit, but couldent get far cuz I left my PC at home while at school. I was laughing at the name, Shit Out of Luck is often abreviated as SOL. And while I am sure it is fast and compact, the same ASM restrictions aply, it will only run on x86 unless a compleat re-write for other platforms is done, which is at best impractical if not impossible. So no, it isn't portable, and programs written for the OS would also be hard to port.
Also, I didn't read far enugh, but what chipset does the OS run on? Because if those ever change I supose you will be... oh go... SOL :D HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!
sorry, had to say it.
Nah, no hard feelings, I just thought it was a funny name.
-
The Muffin Man said:
quote:
if we could get games on that thing...it would be awesome
He he... in the end there will be Hostile Encounter, at least. Perhaps some 3d as well.. (http://tongue.gif)
TheQuirk also stated that:
quote:
A bunch of hacks is not a boot loader in my book
Than what's the definition of a boot loader in that book of yours? Remember how LILO started?
I've seen many new OS projects... most of them using some already made boot loader from the start. I mean.. "I wanna make a new OS so I'm gonna copy a bit from there and another one from here and ready I am. Like the GRUB boot-loader, and portions of the Linux kernel and so on." If you really want to make something then go ahead and create! Everything starts as a quote:
bunch of hacks
but then might evolve.
Oh, and I almost forgot: No, I can't see that you're the most furious man in Taiwan... :rolleyes:
Last but not least, psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax
quote:
it will only run on x86 unless a compleat re-write for other platforms is done
Hmm.... Does MacOSX run on anything BUT Macs? And anyways, since we only had x86s lying around... who cares? We don't aim at conquering the world with this OS. (like that other guy here (http://tongue.gif) )
The purpose of this project is for us to get a better understanding of how things really work. Most programming languages are designed to hide the true and harsh realities of computing from even the programmer, let alone the poor luser. So... what really lies inside?
And besides while we are all saying that Microsoft is bad, that windoze sucks (if it at least would do that right!) and so on, how many of us really tried to do an OS themselves and then talk about others?
I personally like linux (and BSD, somehow) more than Windows, but I am very upset that even there the same thing happens. Imagine many people are writing in INTERPRETORS (see PHP and PERL) and they are complaining about the slow speed of the programs and so on. Why do we have gigahertz processors? To stop optimizing our software, or even more, fill our computers with bloatware. Just think about KDE. How many magabytes of RAM does it require to work properly in, say, SuSE 8.0?
Well... I got me started and I know some of my points come in total disagree with your way of thinking...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkuletz:
The Muffin Man said:
Hmm.... Does MacOSX run on anything BUT Macs? And anyways, since we only had x86s lying around... who cares? We don't aim at conquering the world with this OS. (like that other guy here (http://tongue.gif) )
The purpose of this project is for us to get a better understanding of how things really work. Most programming languages are designed to hide the true and harsh realities of computing from even the programmer, let alone the poor luser. So... what really lies inside?
And besides while we are all saying that Microsoft is bad, that windoze sucks (if it at least would do that right!) and so on, how many of us really tried to do an OS themselves and then talk about others?
I personally like linux (and BSD, somehow) more than Windows, but I am very upset that even there the same thing happens. Imagine many people are writing in INTERPRETORS (see PHP and PERL) and they are complaining about the slow speed of the programs and so on. Why do we have gigahertz processors? To stop optimizing our software, or even more, fill our computers with bloatware. Just think about KDE. How many magabytes of RAM does it require to work properly in, say, SuSE 8.0?
Well... I got me started and I know some of my points come in total disagree with your way of thinking...
Oh I agree totally, I hate the way modern software is so bloated and sloppy. If more companies, invested time to code vital components in ASM, everything would be smaller, faster, and more efficient. I hate the attitude taken by many developers that the hardware will pick up the slack.
I was not knocking the OS, it may be very cool, I dunno. I was simply saying that an OS compleatly written in ASM is very impractical from a mass market stand-point. It's a great hobby project to learn advanced computer programmin and such, but not as an OS for widespread use.
Is PERL only interpreted? I think there is indeed a compiler for it.... maybe not.
-
Just one more thing, please:
An open source operating system, being written in asm does not stop one from writing a (say) C/C++/other compiler for it (should one need sucha thing). I personally program in win32 asm, meaning I write windows programs in ASM. I find it easier than using their vc++ or anything like it. Most of this b/c of the assembler and the possibility to call system APIs or functions, I agree that in the early days ASM programming when one was expected to know all the register parameters of the interrupt services (since all BIOS and OS functions were called that way) was a lot harder. But things have evolved since, and ASM is just a bridge between HLLs and the REAL MACHINE :D
Anyways, there are people who would love having transparent windows, buttons and menus in a program just under 100kb of SIZE (loader included (http://tongue.gif) ) and make an embeded application on it or perhaps write more software for it until it will eventually grow into a complete OS ;)
-
the underlying core of osx is highly portable.
that aside, depending on the skill of the programer, asm can be insanly fast./*most likely the programer is already insane, but hey, raw logic ability has its prices, well worth them.....*/
hell, i barely know C++./*never had time to sit down and master it*/
-
I think writing a complete multi-function, multi-tasking, networking OS in ASM is a very bad idea. ASM is very good for a small OS like SOL or an embedded OS where hardware is not likely to change or a BIOS or boot loader.
But as the program evolves ASM becomes difficult to maintain, loses its speed edge, has awful portablity and will be crippled by any fundemental hardware change.
The stage to which C/C++ compilers has evolved these days means that you can get some very fast compiled code.
Obviously not as fast as ASM but well written C code compiled on a decent compiler can be shit hot.
The point at the end of the day is that in different scenarios the merits of using ASM, C or C++ or whatever tickles your fancy need to be looked at. The best option for a very functional kernel/application tends to be a srategic combination of all three.
Anyway guys, don't start a programming language flame war, because there are different languages for a reason - to be used for different things. Also, it's just wearing.
-
Not trying to start a flame war here, but I'd never write an OS in ASM... Apple did that with their first few versions of Mac OS, and when they moved to a different processor line, large sections of the OS ended up being emulated and really killed the speed.
Now almost the entire thing is done in a C derirative.
It is pretty cool that you wrote an OS in ASM, however. Probably make a really neat operating system for a portable machine with little or no memory (i.e. Gameboy or something).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkuletz:
Just one more thing, please:
An open source operating system, being written in asm does not stop one from writing a (say) C/C++/other compiler for it (should one need sucha thing). I personally program in win32 asm, meaning I write windows programs in ASM. I find it easier than using their vc++ or anything like it. Most of this b/c of the assembler and the possibility to call system APIs or functions, I agree that in the early days ASM programming when one was expected to know all the register parameters of the interrupt services (since all BIOS and OS functions were called that way) was a lot harder. But things have evolved since, and ASM is just a bridge between HLLs and the REAL MACHINE :D
Anyways, there are people who would love having transparent windows, buttons and menus in a program just under 100kb of SIZE (loader included (http://tongue.gif) ) and make an embeded application on it or perhaps write more software for it until it will eventually grow into a complete OS ;)
how portable is this OS?
one other thing, please do not treat this forum as a war. your second post really made this thread look like an argument very early on. many people here are doubtless interested in this sort of thing (especially if it is open source) but they will not stay interested if the discussion always falls to the level of petty bickering (and that goes for the rest of you too! ;) )
edit:
you know what? this looks like a nice OS if it could have any apps!
it's miniscule, it actually has a GUI at that size, i don't see anything wrong with it. the licence is more or less a cross between the GPL and the public domain licences of BSD and Minix, the only thing it needs now is apps.
Do you think this OS would be something i could learn something from? also where would i get some programs to run on this OS? also, do these programs need to be written for this OS, or can they be any ASM programs?
I am actually quite interested in this little project.
edit: i didn't realise it could run under vmware, i hope this project gets a bit of momentum since i would like to see it get hard drive support et cetera. still, i am concerned that if it gets big, it might get really crufty and hard to keep internally tidy, no?
also, what can this damn thing do? i can't find out how to do anything other than open empty windows! does it have utilities? an ability to load things off the floppy et c? does it even have a filesystem? can it access dos formatted floppies? et cetera...
[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: hopelessly outnumbered ]
-
Try writing an OS in binary, so easy to understand.
-
well i think solar OS looks like a good start and i would be interested to know if there is something else that i can do with it as a newbie other than point and click to example windows and buttons et c.
-
Im going to make a fork of Linux and call it Spamix, and optimize the kernel to flood brutal corprate sponsorship of dictators around the world.
-
^ Taking bets, X11?
-
Calum: Well, this is only a spare time project, and I did not say that it's finished. It still needs a lot of work, but also gives a lot of reward.. Anyways, thank you for trying it out, I will post here again when we will have a new version.. Hopefully with some ability to read FAT32 hdd.. And, eventually fat12 fdd. (http://smile.gif)
-
yeah, i'm not too up on OS design, so i kind of need some sort of purpose for it for me to have a clue of what purposes it is fit for, if you know what i mean. still, i do think this could be a good project, however i think you will need some incredibly good OS design if the project is to become larger over time, to ease maintenance, don't you think?
-
I'm going to try this thing - looks neat.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
I'm going to try this thing - looks neat.
I made the disk, but my older machine only has VESA 1.2.... :D Ah well.
-
Ill try it if I have the time.
I wanna try LSD, it sounds mad, and maybe some more Cocain since its so badass.
-
BUMP
It has FAT32 access now, and a couple little applets. Still no major apps.
-
it's an ASM OS, it never will go far because so many of those ASM projects never go beyond endless noodling
-
I'm kinda embarassed of what I said now that I look back.
Anyway, yeah. I doubt it will make it "big," but it's still kinda neat.
-
yeah, it is... it's a great way to learn, and you can create some very new, inventive things... but ASM OSes aren't good at all for "real world" uers. too limited. they're great for embedded use, though.
-
This is cool you people are far more cleaver than I will ever be.
I've just tried this, and it's fast, up to 1024x768 16bpp or 800x600 24bpp on my system, it slows down beyond these resolutions.
The main reason for this appears to be that you've used double buffer buffering, you should use page switching, it uses far less system memory, and twice as much video memory, it's also a hell of a lot faster.
I have quickly scanned through the source code, I can already see one easy peasy optimisation.
Some ware, and I forget exactly, you coded something like;
Shl AX, 3
Shr AX, 1
You should have just coded;
Shl AX, 2
There are probably many more too, I'm still pretty new to assembly code.
It is still faster than Linux even when I run it at 640x480 8bpp.
If you could do something worth while, and write a generic Linux video driver this fast it would be most appreciated.
[ July 14, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
If you could do something worth while, and write a generic Linux video driver this fast it would be most appreciated.
Heh, that still pissing you off, huh? ;)
-
Yes, I would really love to run Linux, if my hardware would run it well. I could also moan on about my printer/scanner and digital camera, I have looked for drivers too. :(
[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Yes, I would really love to run Linux, if my hardware would run it well. I could also moan on about my printer/scanner and digital camera, I have looked for drivers too. :(
[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
Could you give a list of what you think you have that isn't compatible.
Ps: In a new topic (without the "Linsux" parts).
[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
maybe if you'd just get a decent (read: non shitty) vid card, things would be better
-
So my video card is shit now.
Why?
Because Linux doesn't support it!
Bullshit!
My graphics card is not shit, it's perfect under XP, and shit under Linux!
Why?
Because the Linux driver is shit.
I'm not saying that it's top of the range or anything, it's good enough for most things, but it certainly isn't shit!
-
You've got an Ati videocard? In that case, yes, it is shit, sorry man ;)
-
It's not an ATI card, it's a S3 ProSavage DDB.
-
quote:
So my video card is shit now.
Why?
Because Linux doesn't support it!
Bullshit!
My graphics card is not shit, it's perfect under XP, and shit under Linux!
Why?
Because the Linux driver is shit.
I'm not saying that it's top of the range or anything, it's good enough for most things, but it certainly isn't shit!
S3 is even worse than ATI.
Stop pretending and get yourself a non-shitty vid card! Your life will be better for it. You can then run those animations in XP that you insist "slow it the fuck down".
-
quote:
Aloone: It's not an ATI card, it's a S3 ProSavage DDB.
A GeForce 2 is only $ 20 or something, and it's much better for your Linux.
You could even pick up a 3dfx for $2. The company is dead, but they had really good Linux drivers.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
So my video card is shit now.
Why?
Because Linux doesn't support it!
Bullshit!
My graphics card is not shit, it's perfect under XP, and shit under Linux!
Why?
Because the Linux driver is shit.
I'm not saying that it's top of the range or anything, it's good enough for most things, but it certainly isn't shit!
the main point is, if it is a shitty driver, why is this?
why?
ask yourself why before reading my answer below.
think about it...
ok, now here's why, let's see if you got the same conclusion as me. hardware is brough to market as follows:
1. Hardware manufacturer makes a bit of hardware
2. hardware manufacturer pays some people to write drivers and huge bloatware software GUI and crap for their bit of hardware. They usually only want software for the most used system (win*) and for connosieurs, maybe the second most used (macOS*).
3. product gets released with software for win* and if yr very lucky macOS*.
4. users of Linux, FreeBSD et cetera might buy this kit, and some of them MIGHT spend some of their free time writing drivers which allow them to use some of the functions of the erratic bit. somebody might find that an existing driver can be used/modified to make the bit work partially or fully.
5. Windows users moan about how crap the linux drivers are for the bit they paid their hard scrimped dosh for.
now let me ask you, how many of those windows users are writing their own drivers? how many people took how long to come up with the windows software in the first place? given that there's an incentive for non-win* users to not buy this bit anyway, don't you think it's pretty much a wonder drivers get written for this win*-only bit of hardware anyway? i put it to you that if manufacturers put the same effort into making lin* and *bsd software as for win* software then your complaints would be over before they had begun.
now back on topic, the ASM OS seems to have moved to http://www.hostileencounter.com/os_main.html (http://www.hostileencounter.com/os_main.html) now, i am going to try it out again.
-
why not write it for the ipod or gameboy. an os that size would be perfect as the hardware won't change much and i think an os for the gameboy would really give an old hand held some life again.
-
why not write it for the ipod or gameboy. an os that size would be perfect as the hardware won't change much and i think an os for the gameboy would really give an old hand held some life again.
An OS for gameboy ... what the fuck for ? :confused:
-
Would be much more useful. Why would we run an ASM OS anyway? Until it has a webbrowser and core apps.
Flying Chair is at least usable now it has those core apps, but still not complete.
Keep coding though.