[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: Sphere

Another .5 cents of my mind.

Alan Grimes wrote some of this -- I wrote some of this... it's a mess!
>Andrew Cherry wrote:
>
>> >You are, in my book...
>> >
>>
>> Have you tried playing? Make a little kernel. Not your
>> mammoth-new-operating-system-that-will-revolutionize-the-world-and-make-T
>> ux-hide-in-shame-and-Bill-buy-you-out -- just a toy kernel. Hello
>> world+?
>
>Maybe after I can get Oskit to compile... I really like the notion of
>making tux hide in shame; I think I'll add it to my quotefile. =)

As long as I'm cited, it's all good.

>[30 minute download]
>> BACKUPS!!! Download once, back it up to some removable media, even X
>> floppies... And make a friend with a fast connection.
>
>Yeah, but that only lasts a few months untill they release the next
>snapshot... =\

Ah, the glories of PATCHES -- seriously -- you download one version, and
patch it to the next one when it's released -- a few months later.

>[proto-jiberish error message]
>
>> Now, I don't pretend to know what the problem here is -- I know I
>> compiled the OSKit itself without a hitch -- I just ran out of space
>> when compiling example kernels and haven't had a chance to go back
>> after repartitioning my drive (that's this weekend or next...).
>
>Repartitioning your drive?!?!?!?! Um Lets see... The last time I did
>that was back in the spring of '97.............

Get Partition Magic. Seriously. Worth the cash.

>> You have an error -- track it down. Find out what it's conflicting
>> with.
>
>Something in the compiler, apparently. Though I do not know the correct
>syntax for the ASM directive in GCC...

Ummm... Should be documented somewhere...

>> If you're running BeOS, that could be the problem right there...
>
>BeOS is incomprably better than linux or BSD; its almost as good as
>Apple's OS-X... I can do things that take me two weeks or more in Linux
>in less than two minutes under BeOS!!

Okay: BeOS is VERY similar to Mac OS 9 or so... but X is based off a BSD
kernel -- that tell you something? Setting up and running Linux may take
some effort -- RTFM, ask questions... And it'll be worth it. Customize your
kernel... And don't depend on things such as hardware detection, etc., etc.
You have to work at it, earn it -- and learn.

>> I don't remember off the top of my head if BeOS is a permissible
>> development base.
>
>Probably not. Open source developers are profoundly snobbish.

Sorry -- permissible isn't the word -- I was thinking COMPATIBLE.

It would be useless for the OSKit team to try to ensure that the OSKit can
be compiled on all platforms. Linux and BSD aren't too much different. BeOS
is a whole 'nother beasty. Therefore, the compiler for BeOS will behave
differently than the compiler for Linux would -- even if you are still using
GCC. Although standard C libraries may be identical across platforms, and
therefore any ANSI-C compatible program should compile, the OSKit is going
to the lowest level you can -- so yes, BeOS probably is not compatible --
and it has nothing to do with open source developers being "snobbish..."
Actually, I find that comment fairly off base -- how can you call someone
snobbish who willing shares his hard work with you, expecting nothing back?

>> and even if it is, RTFM -- who knows what special things need to be
>> done for BeOS? I don't... do you?
>
>I will probably need to do that soon. =\
>
>At least get a printout of the manual for GCC...

GREAT! START! LEARN! RTFM, baby, RTFM!!!

>> That's what takes the time. You have to start with the trivial, modify
>> the samples, try things. Can you boot a sample kernel?
>
>Almost certainly no...

See? Do that first.

>> Get that working before you worry about any of the complex stuff.
>
>It would help if the makefile for GCC under BeOS worked... =\
>(probably some arcane syntax error that would require an expert to
>spot).

Probably because the makefile is designed for one particular system... and
would need to be customized if it would even work on BeOS...

>> >I barely even know what you are talking about... I can't even get ISP
>> >dialup working under BSD.
>>
>> WinModem, I'm guessing.
>
>Absolutly not!
>I would never touch those things!
>How dare you make such an accusation! ;)

Like this: "WinModem, I'm guessing." :)

>> If it's a configuration thing, read up on BSD and Linux -- there are a
>> couple of very good books discussing the Kernel design for BSD and
>> Linux available, you might want to look at those, too (just as an
>> aside).
>
>Linux:    Free
>CD-ROM to make it convenient to install:    $30
>Books to understand how to make it do something useful:   $300

Linux: Free
Linux Distro on CD: $10? (cheapbytes.com) inc. shipping... or item number
"0070010655" that includes both Mandrake 8 CDs and a Linux book for $10 +
shipping + tax
Man pages to decipher and Internet sites and documentation online: $0

There's tons of free information available.

>> OSKit provides CONCRETE IMPLEMENTATIONS of various abstractions.
>
>That much is taken for granted... Wheather those implementations are in
>a form that is at all useful is a different question...

Easily answerable: useable to a target audience. It's not designed for every
Joe.

>> Yes. But the OSKit is a concrete system, not some theoretical topic.
>
>But asserting that it is possible to get a net benefit from the use of
>oskit is, in my mind, equivalent to the assertion that there is a Loch
>Ness Monster; or that an elf with a team of raindeer delivers toys to
>all the kids of the world shortly after the winter solstace...

Okay -- anyone on the mailing list who is not automatically deleting these
posts as they show up -- please feel free to chime in with what you're
making with OSKit. I know there's at least one OS developed with OSKit,
'cause I was looking to do what it did -- MZScheme, an operating system
solely dependent on the Scheme programming language.

>What I am getting at is that the rubber hits the road when I hit
>"make"...
>
>The only piece of software I ever successfully installed from source and
>collected useful work from was an IRC bot, but then that thing was on
>the scale of a quarter-megabyte and was therefore nearly foolproof.
>
>Free software promices so much; but I have not yet seen it deliver a
>usable useful system.

Okay, if you're having trouble compiling something, RTFMs. See what could be
causing the problem on your end -- whether BeOS is supported at all, whether
you should switch to a Linux for compilation, even if you program in some
pretty BeOS application...

Hrm -- you just gave us an example of a useful program you found that was
free... how's Linux? FreeBSD? NetBSD? Ever hear of Star Office? Licensed,
but free. GiMP. Image Magick. Java (theoretically). Python. TCL. XFree86.

You getting the picture?

>> I'm very glad that the OSKit is a toolkit -- otherwise it wouldn't be
>> very useful to me!
>
>I have not gotten *ANY* GNU tool to ever work properly.... Either
>through buggy code that wouldn't compile or AWOL documentation...

Ah, the value of having the source -- you can figure out what it does on
your own.

>> You seem to be blending the idea of a programming abstraction with a
>> communications abstraction. And abstractions are useful in both.
>
>They are of the same class. The former is a proper subset of the latter.

Semantics, schmantics.

>> But the OSKit provides something behind the abstraction -- both the
>> pointed rock-tipped stick and the "spear."
>
>I had an axe in mind with my description. That should say something to
>you.

A spear is an axe with it's head pointed forward... sorta.

>> Package and sell? Right. Sorry, this struck me as a bit...
>> inappropriate.
>
>No; not at all... Ofcourse I am using a general definition for "sell"
>but the overall idea is the same: to help devels find use for your tool.

There are obviously people on this list -- who find use for the OSKit.

>> We know what a runtime linker and loader is. We'd be
>> the ones to write something useful... like "Flexi-Loader(r) (tm) (c)".
>
>It took me 18 months to finaly peice togeather what a linker actualy
>did... =\ I will need time to complete a suitability study of ELF for my
>purposes; if it isn't suitable then I will need to hack togeather my own
>BFDs... =(

Well, good for you. Study. Study good.

>[Making it bootable]
>> >How; show it to me...
>>
>> He's talking in general, starting from scratch. The moment you compile
>> a kernel with OSKit, it has a bootable entry point. Unless, of course,
>> you're changing the boot loader -- in which case, no guarantees. :)
>
>If I recall correctly, OpenBoot specifies a boot signature that is
>located by a scanning process. How do you ensure your signature is where
>it needs to be?
>
>How do compile your stuff such that this works?

RTFM, baby.

>> PLAY! And switch to Linux, get off your little graphical interface.
>
>Linux is nearly the worst OS currently on the market... Even MINIX is
>better. =)

Based off what criteria??? Is it the worst for playing current games? Not
really... just small selection. Is it the worst for running ActiveX
controls? Yeah, duh. Is it the worst for hosting websites? No, by far no. Is
it the easiest to use? No. The most out-of-box compatible? No. But there's a
reason it's being used.

>> Okay: Upgrade to Windows 2000. I refused to give my DOS prompt up.
>
>Me neither; to this very day!

Okay: keep a DOS partition, and DUAL BOOT!!!!

>> If you're stuck on a Command Line fetish, get Linux, and don't install
>> X.
>
>I would need X to run netscape. =(

Okay, install Linux, install X, be happy.

>> It's so much more fun, and powerful, than DOS could ever be.
>
>No. DOS is the absolute best PC OS in existance bar none.

Again, your definitions of "best" escape me. DOS only allows addressing of
the lowest 640K of memory without additional drivers. No program can address
the space over 640K without special drivers, anyway. There's no generic
hardware abstraction layer. Without loading ANSI.sys, you can't use color
text. You're limited to a single user system. You can't get much in the way
of software. You are limited to... 1024 cylinders, I believe... I don't
remember -- but the harddrive size is definitely limited. And lost space due
to internal fragmentation from huge cluster sizes is a waste. So why, pray
tell, is DOS the "absolute best PS OS in existance bar none"?

>> And a drive won't die if you install something on it that you later
>> delete -- TRUST ME. You have a 60gig drive -- set it up tonight! Start
>> using it tomorrow! There's no use in saving a drive for an "OS that
>> deserves it." Just install, keep important stuff backed up, and
>> reinstall if you make a mistake.
>
>I'd wish; DOS can't make use of something that mamoth; and BeOS is the
>only OS that really deserves the space but it crashes when I start doing
>things like decompress a large tarball (such as GCC) to it.

So install Linux! Give it a shot! Install Windows 95 and dual boot!
ANYTHING. The 60gig drive is being wasted if you won't put anything on it,
while you're waiting... heck, send it to me, I'll put it to good use!

>> So did you figure out what caused that problem? Like the VFAT driver
>> being expected by the kernel, or mentioned in an init script?
>
>I wouldn't know how to read the Init script even if I knew how to locate
>it.

Man pages. Man pages. Man pages.

>> Mandrake is an easier install, and will get you up and running faster.
>
>I am not inclined to care. Linux doesn't offer me anything that is worth
>the frustration of trying to use it.

Really? Stability? Availability of more modern tools/programs?
Compatibility? The ability to use your 60gig drive? To keep DOS at the same
time? There are hundreds of reasons to upgrade.

>> Multiboot -- able to boot boot images/kernels in multiple formats --
>> ie, a Linux kernel, DOS, OSKit, BSD, etc.
>
>Yeah, but how do you make sure your binary works?

You have to compile it first. Duh. :)

>> And getting Grub working isn't much different than getting LILO working
>
>I MIGHT look at it... eventually... Right now I am most concerned about
>making something that is worth booting.

Get one of the samples compiled, and set that up. It will make you happier.

>--
>> what with the X-based and menu-based LILO config makers, LILO is a
>> piece of cake.
>
>GUI != USABILITY
>GUI != USABILITY
>GUI != USABILITY
>
>Minix's booter, with only a line-mode config utility, is much easier
>than many graphical programs. Ease of use comes from sanity of design;
>not pretty pictures.

Ooookay. Based off your expressed preference for OS-X and BeOS -- it's
understandable to assume you prefer GUIs.

Then read the help file and write your config file... RTFM!

>> >--
>> >NUKE NIGERIA!!!!  (419)
>>
>> I MUST have missed something...
>
>The third largest industry in Nigeria is conducting Section 419 fraud
>against wealthy americans and europeans. The revenues are on the order
>of three billion dollars! Even I got targeted by one of their
>attempts...

And what is Section 419 Fraud?

Andrew
References: