quickos-general Mailing List for QuickOS - the quickest operating system
Status: Planning
Brought to you by:
azhobbes
Menu
▾
▴
quickos-general — general purpose list - kernel, features, development
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|
|
From: Andreas Z. <azh...@gm...> - 2001-11-07 21:12:18
|
I Nazar wrote: > Hi. I want to write a protected-mode bootsector, and an ELF kernel > (containing just a print-to-screen command at the moment). > Something really simple, in other words. I'll need to study the ELF > specs, but I should be able to do the bootloader in the next few > weeks. > > On another note, which fileystem are we using - FAT, NTFS, our > own? > > Imran Nazar-- No, its not a good idea to write a protected-mode bootsector. Because you need some tables and checks before you enter protected-mode. And you loose bytes (theres only 499 of them), for procedures you need to load a sector (8GB-LBA) and service function. The better way is like NT, i think its a 2-stage-loader: Make a bootsector, load a startup-image - that supports a filesystems, and this programm loads our kernel-image. Mfg Andreas Ziermann b...@lo... -- http://www.loet.de |
|
From: Andreas Z. <azh...@gm...> - 2001-11-07 21:12:13
|
Aleksey Saushev wrote:
> Well, I think it is better to suppose O.S. 386 CPU
> dependent. Not to write "as portable as we can".
Yes. 386sx...P4...K7/8/9/10
> About peripherial requirements. I asked if we need program
> anything except FDD/HDD and console (at first & in future).
VGA,HERC,CGA?,TIMER, my special hardware
> Also, should I relate the "quickness" to computational
> or to peripherial work.
It think theres no problem for both ones.
> I mean what to plan:
> fast task switching (cooperative or preemptive)
i prefer mix cooperative or preemptive - some task has to be
cooperative( ... need so write 128 bytes within 250?sec... ).
I want a my DOS back, 32bit advadages and multitasking.
> or better disk caching policy.
later. that not i think at this moment. if our kernel works, we
could optimize in this way.
> Suggestions.
> 1. If we want really quick OS, we have to forget about
> swapping, paging, protection.
seldom if we need "hard"-realtime - therefor must forget swapping,
paging.
But most time we can go with preemptive and sometimes we can switch
to cooperative ("soft-realtime").
I think if we want to produce a safe os, we must present a preemptive
multitasking system with paging. if that works fine we can insert
cooperative tasks.
First a want a safe OS, i dont want to go the way which win3.1 win9x has
gone.
Only if you really need more control over you processor - then you can
switch
down protection. Most time we dont need.
> Q: What do we want to throw away?
> What do we want to see working?
First I want a working preemptive-pageing-kernel.
> 2. Booting from FAT.
yes. or from ROMFS because i want to start this os diskless. just from
ROM link network cards do
> 3. FAT support.
> Q: Do you have any doc/code showing I/O from
> protected mode?
YES. i have a working pmode-demo.
> 4. Flat memory: no paging, no swapping, single address
> space.
its difficult to share data-memory among tasks (in a save way) without
paging. for most
tasks i prefer paging.
> 5. Operating shell for interractive debugging.
> (I think FORTH is the best way to organize it.)
I dont believe that its the best way.
But seeing is believing. :-)
--
Mfg Andreas Ziermann
b...@lo...
--
http://www.loet.de
|
|
From: Andreas Z. <azh...@gm...> - 2001-10-30 18:22:19
|
I uploaded a small sample program and a testing environment. Developing works fine under Win32. For Tests you need a plain DOS or "build bochs" Next step: we need a ELF or PE loader. Any expirience? Please tell me wether it works or not. -- Mfg Andreas Ziermann b...@lo... -- http://www.loet.de |
|
From: Maxim S. <max...@la...> - 2001-10-30 17:14:58
|
|
From: Maxim S. <rv...@aa...> - 2001-10-30 17:10:40
|
Does it work? max...@la... |
|
From: Andreas Z. <azh...@gm...> - 2001-10-30 09:08:57
|
its ok (2)? -- Mfg Andreas Ziermann b...@lo... -- http://www.loet.de |
