Volunteers for DiskOS project

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by SagaLor » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00



I need a programmer that will implement a design I'm working on for a new
DOS and File System.  I'm not proficient in programming on this level, so
you'll have to bare with me.  This new DOS is not a single entity in itself
(although it could be), but it is merely the base of another OS project I'm
involved with.

Characteristics of the DOS (more info if you're interested):

It will NOT be using 8.3 filenames.
It will NOT be using a FAT system.
It will be written in ASM, PowerBasic, or Oberon.  (Not C++, but Java might
be a consideration).
It will be 32bit.
It needs to run DOS, Windows, and Macintosh programs.  (Not necessarily a
primary goal for earlier versions)
It will have Linux similar networking protocals.
It will multi-task and multi-thread.
Needs to be able to recognize today's standard hardware such as CD and mouse
without the need of running separate commands to initiate them.
A special Virtual Memory set up that I'll explain later.

This Disk Operating System will have a GUI to sit on top of it, but that is
another project.

So in other words, it really isn't just another DOS, but a base for a bigger
project.  Also, the most important component is the file system itself.

If you're interested, or can contribute any ideas, contact me at

Rick

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Scott Walke » Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:00:00



>I need a programmer that will implement a design I'm working on for a new
>DOS and File System.  I'm not proficient in programming on this level, so
>you'll have to bare with me.  This new DOS is not a single entity in itself
>(although it could be), but it is merely the base of another OS project I'm
>involved with.

>Characteristics of the DOS (more info if you're interested):

>It will NOT be using 8.3 filenames.
>It will NOT be using a FAT system.
>It will be written in ASM, PowerBasic, or Oberon.  (Not C++, but Java might
>be a consideration).
>It will be 32bit.
>It needs to run DOS, Windows, and Macintosh programs.  (Not necessarily a
>primary goal for earlier versions)
>It will have Linux similar networking protocals.
>It will multi-task and multi-thread.
>Needs to be able to recognize today's standard hardware such as CD and
mouse
>without the need of running separate commands to initiate them.
>A special Virtual Memory set up that I'll explain later.

>This Disk Operating System will have a GUI to sit on top of it, but that is
>another project.

>So in other words, it really isn't just another DOS, but a base for a
bigger
>project.  Also, the most important component is the file system itself.

>If you're interested, or can contribute any ideas, contact me at

>Rick

You don't need a programmer...you need a team of programmers.  Writing an OS
is an ambitious project for any software company, why do you want to do it
yourself?  Have you given any thought to the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of
thousands of dollars it will cost to get a team of experienced, qualified
programmers to produce the OS?  What hardware were you planning on running
this OS on?  You may not get true platform independence with a single OS
because each CPU uses it's own method of executing instructions.

You may want to consider an existing system for what you're doing.

Scott

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Jim Tre » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00




> >I need a programmer that will implement a design I'm working on for a new
> >DOS and File System.  I'm not proficient in programming on this level, so
> >you'll have to bare with me.  This new DOS is not a single entity in itself
> >(although it could be), but it is merely the base of another OS project I'm
> >involved with.

> >Characteristics of the DOS (more info if you're interested):

> >It will NOT be using 8.3 filenames.
> >It will NOT be using a FAT system.
> >It will be written in ASM, PowerBasic, or Oberon.  (Not C++, but Java might
> >be a consideration).
> >It will be 32bit.
> >It needs to run DOS, Windows, and Macintosh programs.  (Not necessarily a
> >primary goal for earlier versions)
> >It will have Linux similar networking protocals.
> >It will multi-task and multi-thread.
> >Needs to be able to recognize today's standard hardware such as CD and
> mouse
> >without the need of running separate commands to initiate them.
> >A special Virtual Memory set up that I'll explain later.

> >This Disk Operating System will have a GUI to sit on top of it, but that is
> >another project.

> >So in other words, it really isn't just another DOS, but a base for a
> bigger
> >project.  Also, the most important component is the file system itself.

> >If you're interested, or can contribute any ideas, contact me at

> >Rick

> You don't need a programmer...you need a team of programmers.  Writing an OS
> is an ambitious project for any software company, why do you want to do it
> yourself?  Have you given any thought to the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of
> thousands of dollars it will cost to get a team of experienced, qualified
> programmers to produce the OS?  What hardware were you planning on running
> this OS on?  You may not get true platform independence with a single OS
> because each CPU uses it's own method of executing instructions.

> You may want to consider an existing system for what you're doing.

> Scott

Scott and Rick,

I would not discount the possibility that this project might
be completed successfully.

To facilitate the writing of PC operating systems large and
small, might we start a documentation project the explains the
hardware (starting with the 386 and common peripherals)?  I would
be willing to devote web site space to such information, particularly
that which is expressed in terms of assembly language.

There should be more operating systems and there should be more
information clearly and freely available about the PC hardware.
I feel that the lack of competition is mainly due to the
difficulty of finding this information.  If it existed in a
collection of linked sites, one wouldn't need to accumulate it
piecemeal over a period of years.

Does anybody have a mouse driver that does not depend upon calls
to an existing operating system?  The Linux documentation project
may be useful to some extent.

Does anybody have a complete explanation of VGA (not any Super
VGA)?

How about a complete keyboard driver (in assembly language, of
course)?

If all of the needed drivers for a 386 machine were easily
findable, I believe that OS projects could be made considerably
less daunting.

Jim Trek

http://www.frontiernet.net/~progress/

Future Beacon Technology
128 Main Street
Brockport, NY 14420
(716) 637-0256

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Kosta Kosti » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Jim Trek schrieb in Nachricht ...

Quote:>I would not discount the possibility that this project might
>be completed successfully.

That may be, but who needs it?

Quote:>Does anybody have a mouse driver that does not depend upon calls
>to an existing operating system?  The Linux documentation project
>may be useful to some extent.

A *driver* can not be independend of an OS. Or at least not
very efficient.

Quote:>Does anybody have a complete explanation of VGA (not any Super
>VGA)?

Hey, hardware changes faster than you seem to think. VGA? Super VGA?
At times where 16 MB 3D AGP cards are "normal" I wouldn't worry about
all those ole VGAs.

Quote:>How about a complete keyboard driver (in assembly language, of
>course)?

In assembly? So it's not portable to other platforms?  :)

Quote:>If all of the needed drivers for a 386 machine were easily
>findable, I believe that OS projects could be made considerably
>less daunting.

I think what we need is not more OSes but more usable OSes and
more easy to install, administer, maintain, update, support.
What also is more needed than yet another OS is applications.

Just my 0,02 Euro

    Kosta

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Har-D-Har-Ha » Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:>More OSs?  We have enough trouble as it is!
>Linux is the best example, who would have though that an OS named the same
>could be so different.  The x86 version of Linux is very much incompatible
>with the PowerPC version, so why are they called the same OS?
>Plus, it's apparent compatibility with Unix is a farce!

The idea is that code written for Linux X86 can be recompiled to run on
Linux PPC, although this is never as easy as it seems. Even the much touted
Java, as a cross platform solution, can't always perform this task.
Regarding Linux and Unix compatability, many different flavours of Unix are
not compatable. Linux started out, AFAIK, as a Unix like OS, absolute Unix
compatability would require choosing a specific flavour.

On the topic though, although this is an admirable undertaking, I believe it
would easier and more popular to limit compatability to the Intel platform
and let the Mac die it's inevitable death.
HK

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by M. Traus » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00


On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:03:21 +0100, "Kosta Kostis"

::snip::

Quote:

>>Does anybody have a complete explanation of VGA (not any Super
>>VGA)?

>Hey, hardware changes faster than you seem to think. VGA? Super VGA?
>At times where 16 MB 3D AGP cards are "normal" I wouldn't worry about
>all those ole VGAs.

You should.  When you write an operating system, you should consider
all possible computers that could still be in use.  I know of many
places were an 8088 with a CGA display is still "normal" equipment.
You need to consider for that, unless you want a 32bit OS, then you
should design around a 386, 2MB, 200MB hd, and a CGA, for minimum
standards, if you're going to worry about compatability.

Quote:

>>How about a complete keyboard driver (in assembly language, of
>>course)?

>In assembly? So it's not portable to other platforms?  :)

We're talking x86 here!  Not Multi-platform.

Quote:

>>If all of the needed drivers for a 386 machine were easily
>>findable, I believe that OS projects could be made considerably
>>less daunting.

>I think what we need is not more OSes but more usable OSes and
>more easy to install, administer, maintain, update, support.
>What also is more needed than yet another OS is applications.

Well, we need both new OSs and more docs.  More OSs to give choice to
the world, instead of a one-sided view on everything.  And more docs
and better programmers to enhance the OSs that we do have (most
notably, we need more programmers for Microsoft that know what they're
doing, so that Windows will actually work!).

Quote:

>Just my 0,02 Euro

And I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear about your accursed "euro."
This is off-topic, however, all the Euro is, is another prophesy from
the Bible come true to say that we're close to the end times.  This is
good for me, but bad for very many.  (Read Revelation for details.)

Quote:

>    Kosta

        - Mike Trausch
 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Tudor Holto » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00



> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:03:21 +0100, "Kosta Kostis"

> ::snip::

> >>Does anybody have a complete explanation of VGA (not any Super
> >>VGA)?

> >Hey, hardware changes faster than you seem to think. VGA? Super VGA?
> >At times where 16 MB 3D AGP cards are "normal" I wouldn't worry about
> >all those ole VGAs.

> You should.  When you write an operating system, you should consider
> all possible computers that could still be in use.  I know of many
> places were an 8088 with a CGA display is still "normal" equipment.
> You need to consider for that, unless you want a 32bit OS, then you
> should design around a 386, 2MB, 200MB hd, and a CGA, for minimum
> standards, if you're going to worry about compatability.

Don't forget, however, that it takes a while to write an operating system,
and so, to that degree, the standard would have changed by the time you
finish it.  It might be good to plan ahead a little.  Do a few educated
predictions.  I also think that backward compatibility can go too far.
For example, the Pentium-II processor is compatible with the 8086 which
makes it absolutely hellish to write code because there is too many
possible switches and mistakes you can make!

Quote:

> >>How about a complete keyboard driver (in assembly language, of
> >>course)?

> >In assembly? So it's not portable to other platforms?  :)

> We're talking x86 here!  Not Multi-platform.

Why/Why not? I think somebody should tackle this sideways compatibility at
a lower level than Java.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >>If all of the needed drivers for a 386 machine were easily
> >>findable, I believe that OS projects could be made considerably
> >>less daunting.

> >I think what we need is not more OSes but more usable OSes and
> >more easy to install, administer, maintain, update, support.
> >What also is more needed than yet another OS is applications.

> Well, we need both new OSs and more docs.  More OSs to give choice to
> the world, instead of a one-sided view on everything.  And more docs
> and better programmers to enhance the OSs that we do have (most
> notably, we need more programmers for Microsoft that know what they're
> doing, so that Windows will actually work!).

More OSs?  We have enough trouble as it is!
Linux is the best example, who would have though that an OS named the same
could be so different.  The x86 version of Linux is very much incompatible
with the PowerPC version, so why are they called the same OS?
Plus, it's apparent compatibility with Unix is a farce!

Quote:

> >Just my 0,02 Euro

> And I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear about your accursed "euro."
> This is off-topic, however, all the Euro is, is another prophesy from
> the Bible come true to say that we're close to the end times.  This is
> good for me, but bad for very many.  (Read Revelation for details.)

And I think we should keep religion out of it.

Quote:

> >    Kosta

>         - Mike Trausch

Tudor
 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Ian Campbel » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:> >It will be written in ASM, PowerBasic, or Oberon.  (Not C++, but Java might
> >be a consideration).

    I could be wrong, but last time I checked Java needed an interpreter because
it doesn't compile to any specific processors opcodes. I'm not sure how suitable
that'd be for an operating system.

Quote:> >It needs to run DOS, Windows, and Macintosh programs.  (Not necessarily a
> >primary goal for earlier versions)

If you're going to try and make a brand new OS that runs on every potential
platform... or whatever, won't DOS/Win32/Mac programs have to be interpreted?
Mac programs a physically different (not too big a problem) not to mention the
different opcodes...

Quote:> You don't need a programmer...you need a team of programmers.  Writing an OS
> is an ambitious project for any software company, why do you want to do it
> yourself?  Have you given any thought to the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of
> thousands of dollars it will cost to get a team of experienced, qualified
> programmers to produce the OS?

    Check out freedos.org, linux.org etc... all of these are OSes produced by
teams of programmers working for _FREE_ for whatever reason.
 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Tudor Holto » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00



> > >It will be written in ASM, PowerBasic, or Oberon.  (Not C++, but Java might
> > >be a consideration).

>     I could be wrong, but last time I checked Java needed an interpreter because
> it doesn't compile to any specific processors opcodes. I'm not sure how suitable
> that'd be for an operating system.

Yeah, I thought that too.  But, admittedly I held my tongue because I did hear
something about JavaOS being built.  It's on their site:
 JavaOS

Quote:

> > >It needs to run DOS, Windows, and Macintosh programs.  (Not necessarily a
> > >primary goal for earlier versions)

> If you're going to try and make a brand new OS that runs on every potential
> platform... or whatever, won't DOS/Win32/Mac programs have to be interpreted?
> Mac programs a physically different (not too big a problem) not to mention the
> different opcodes...

Yes, exactly!

Quote:

> > You don't need a programmer...you need a team of programmers.  Writing an OS
> > is an ambitious project for any software company, why do you want to do it
> > yourself?  Have you given any thought to the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of
> > thousands of dollars it will cost to get a team of experienced, qualified
> > programmers to produce the OS?

>     Check out freedos.org, linux.org etc... all of these are OSes produced by
> teams of programmers working for _FREE_ for whatever reason.

Tudor
 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Kosta Kosti » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00



>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:03:21 +0100, "Kosta Kostis"

>>Hey, hardware changes faster than you seem to think. VGA? Super VGA?
>>At times where 16 MB 3D AGP cards are "normal" I wouldn't worry about
>>all those ole VGAs.
>You should.  When you write an operating system, you should consider
>all possible computers that could still be in use.  I know of many
>places were an 8088 with a CGA display is still "normal" equipment.

Right, VGA knowledge helps a lot there.

Quote:>You need to consider for that, unless you want a 32bit OS, then you
>should design around a 386, 2MB, 200MB hd, and a CGA, for minimum
>standards, if you're going to worry about compatability.

The OS mentioned in the original post was defined to be 32-bit
which will not run on 8086 system and it featured running 32 bit
programmes, too. How do you tie that together?

Quote:>>In assembly? So it's not portable to other platforms?  :)
>We're talking x86 here!  Not Multi-platform.

And what for? Even Microsoft figured x86 is not enough.

Quote:>Well, we need both new OSs and more docs.  More OSs to give choice to
>the world, instead of a one-sided view on everything.

We need more compatibility so we can run more programmes and
not yet another OS which will produce yet another format
programmes are written to and run under.

The idea of running Mac programmes on a x86 system is quite
funny considering the hardware requirements you mentioned.
I think it's a dead project we're talking about here but if
you wanna work on it and waste your time, just go on and do
it.  ;)

Quote:>And more docs
>and better programmers to enhance the OSs that we do have (most
>notably, we need more programmers for Microsoft that know what they're
>doing, so that Windows will actually work!).

How does writing yet another OS with very questionable
features help to educate people at Microsoft? Escapes me.

Quote:>>Just my 0,02 Euro
>And I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear about your accursed "euro."

It's an analogy to your "0.02 Cents".
You didn't even get this joke.

Quote:>This is off-topic, however, all the Euro is, is another prophesy from
>the Bible come true to say that we're close to the end times.  This is
>good for me, but bad for very many.  (Read Revelation for details.)

The wildest bullshit I've ever read about the Euro.

How the hell can that be "bad" in the manner you describe?
You're obviously just another nut bag. Now I seem to be
wasting my time so I end right here.

There's people out there, unbelievable

    Kosta

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Jonadab the Unsightly O » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Crosspost from the Abyss.

I smell a troll.

If zerospam.com bounces substitute bright.net

          --  Jonadab the Unsightly One

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Tudor Holto » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00



> >More OSs?  We have enough trouble as it is!
> >Linux is the best example, who would have though that an OS named the same
> >could be so different.  The x86 version of Linux is very much incompatible
> >with the PowerPC version, so why are they called the same OS?
> >Plus, it's apparent compatibility with Unix is a farce!

> The idea is that code written for Linux X86 can be recompiled to run on
> Linux PPC, although this is never as easy as it seems. Even the much touted
> Java, as a cross platform solution, can't always perform this task.
> Regarding Linux and Unix compatability, many different flavours of Unix are
> not compatable. Linux started out, AFAIK, as a Unix like OS, absolute Unix
> compatability would require choosing a specific flavour.

> On the topic though, although this is an admirable undertaking, I believe it
> would easier and more popular to limit compatability to the Intel platform
> and let the Mac die it's inevitable death.
> HK

Ouch!  My business partner would kill you.  :)

Tudor

 
 
 

Volunteers for DiskOS project

Post by Edward Hil » Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:00:00


[snippety snip snip]
:
::Does anybody have a complete explanation of VGA (not any Super
::VGA)?
:
: Hey, hardware changes faster than you seem to think. VGA? Super VGA?
: At times where 16 MB 3D AGP cards are "normal" I wouldn't worry about
: all those ole VGAs.
:

That's a rather interesting viewpoint.
I assume its the same sort of thinking that I encountered
when installing a cdrom into a new machine recently,
the cd-rom was going to be used to install the opsys but
the driver disk with it had drivers for only win 3.1 and win95
no dos driver at all.  So I was faced with having to have
the operating system which I wanted to install on the system so I
could load the cd drivers so I could install the operation system.
Chicken and the egg eh?

Anyway oh yeah my point, just because your graphics card is the norm
16MB 3D AGP, what do you think is coming up on the screen?
VGA is standard, without any drivers loaded plug it in and it will
work, how do you expect to see the instructions on the screen
to load the drivers for your graphics cards latest-vga fad without the
orig vga.

I don't suppose you think that your grahics card will still work
if your operating system didn't understand what VGA is?

Ed

 
 
 

1. FREMM386 Project Volunteers Needed

I am re-launching the FREMM386 project, and I'm looking for folks who are
interested in helping with design, programming, and testing.

For those who don't know, FREMM386 is (will be) a free replacement for
EMM386.  It will provide (at least) EMS, XMS, UMB, and DPMI to
applications.  I also hope to provide compatibility with some less common
protocols later on.

I have created a mailing list for FREMM386 developers.  Here's the URL to
subscribe:

http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fremm386-devel

The first thing I want to do is determine the resources I have available
(that is, see if anyone is really interested) and hammer out some
requirements.

If you are interested, don't hesitate to subscribe to the list and offer
your talents!

- D


2. X2 winNT disconnects

3. Free-DOS project status update - call for volunteers

4. Desks overview license info

5. FREMM386 Project Volunteers Needed

6. NDIS Pocket eth adaptor

7. WANTED: Volunteer coordinator for Free-DOS

8. V.120 / PPP / TACACS+

9. volunteer programmers / hackers needed

10. Electronic Graphics Comic needs help (volunteer)

11. volunteer allegro programmers needed...

12. Commercial project

13. problems with RHIDE, projects, and SIGABRT