OSDev.org

Radian wrote:But at least we can make driver development comfortable, both technically and legally, for everyone. The point is you can't write the driver for every device in this planet yourself. Let people write driver for device they like (mostly) independently from the other part of OS.

That was the whole point of projects like UDI - cross-platform driver development.

However, Microsoft won't have it (as their driver base is one of their main leverages to the market), and GNU / Linux won't have it either because of their skewed view on "freedom".

So when the dotcom bubble burst and funding of the project dried up, there was not enough momentum behind it to really keep it going.

I still say that UDI is the key to having the decision for a specific OS being made on technical merit, not hardware driver support. If you really want to make the world a better place, UDI is a good point to start working on it. Porting the UDI reference implementation to the current Linux kernel would be an awesome feat.

This is the very first step we should take. Market is the next step.

Radian wrote:But at least we can make driver development comfortable, both technically and legally, for everyone.

Agreed. IMHO, successful OS in modern world must have two keystone points to compete:
1. Step-by-step driver development documentation.
2. Binary driver interface.
First is obvious. Second is because many OEMs prefer to hide the internals of their devices and driver know-hows to survive in competitive world and will prefer not to release driver at all than to release open-source.

Yoda wrote:

TylerH wrote:I have no idea where you get the idea that Linux doesn't have utilities and libraries, but it does. *BSD and Linux are almost too similar to tell the difference, in terms of system design. (In fact, I don't really know of any differences, other than directory layout and boot mechanisms.)

Linux community at kernel.org is aware only of kernel and drivers. But AFAIK, Linux distributions use set of standard utilities that come under FreeBSD license.

Both systems intend to present the same front-end to the user with separate codebases. Linux' choice of those utilities are of course provided by GNU and therefore GPLed. In fact, it was the Linux kernel that got added to RMS's shopping list because none of his drones had an alternative, with the current division as a result.

If you care about licensing, go get the BSD versions because Linux hasn't got too much to offer:

The package manager wrote: * sys-apps/coreutils
Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/
Description: Standard GNU file utilities (chmod, cp, dd, dir, ls...), text utilities (sort, tr, head, wc..), and shell utilities (whoami, who,...)
License: GPL-3

And it's primary non-Stallman contender:

The package manager wrote:* sys-apps/busybox
Homepage: http://www.busybox.net/
Description: Utilities for rescue and embedded systems
License: GPL-2

Radian wrote: 1. X window ...
... There is Wayland project http://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html...

Wow, very nice, thanks for that link :O

Combuster wrote:If you care about licensing, go get the BSD versions because Linux hasn't got too much to offer...

I incorrectly formulated my point. Better to say that Linux uses a basic set of utils (ls, cd, etc., - all that /bin/* stuff) known as BSD utils and that must be included to any (even lightweight) distribution, that claims to be called an "OS". I didn't mean licensing question.

Yoda wrote:

Combuster wrote:If you care about licensing, go get the BSD versions because Linux hasn't got too much to offer...

I incorrectly formulated my point. Better to say that Linux uses a basic set of utils (ls, cd, etc., - all that /bin/* stuff) known as BSD utils and that must be included to any (even lightweight) distribution, that claims to be called an "OS". I didn't mean licensing question.

Most Linux distributions do not use BSD utilities, they use GNU coreutils.

(...) known as BSD utils and that must be included to any (even lightweight) distribution, that claims to be called an "OS"

That's nonsense. An OS is a set of components that is sufficient to run the tasks intended for the system. You do not need the posix userspace to meet that criterium. If you wrote your shell in Java, you'd just call the kernel functions directly instead of fork/exec into busybox for each such operation.

Windows lacks bsd utils as well

Combuster wrote:An OS is a set of components that is sufficient to run the tasks intended for the system.

Only?? Tell that to BG which claims that IE is the part of OS

Combuster wrote:Windows lacks bsd utils as well

Windows has an adequate replacement.

berkus wrote:

Yoda wrote:

Combuster wrote:Windows lacks bsd utils as well

Windows has an adequate replacement.

I seriously LOL'd.

Windows command prompt: For those who like broken glass in their cornflakes.

berkus wrote:

Yoda wrote:

Combuster wrote:Windows lacks bsd utils as well

Windows has an adequate replacement.

I seriously LOL'd.

Why? With Cygwin Windows does have an adequate... wait, that's the same userspace.

brain wrote:Windows command prompt: For those who like broken glass in their cornflakes.

Boss to secretary:
- Kate, my dear, please, copy monthly report to our partners, they are coming to you.
- Good morning. Is that you who waits for report?
- Good morning. Yes, we are. Here is the blank floppy.
- OK.
Inserts floppy and...
# mkfs -t vfat -c /dev/fd0h1440
# mount -t vfat -o iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=866 /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy
# find / -noleaf -type f -name Report_april. [a-zA-Z] -exec cp ?{ }?; /mnt/floppy ;
# ls -la /mnt/floppy/Report_april. [a-z][A-Z] && sync && sleep 3
- Take that, please!
Partners:
- Oh, ****!!!
Kate:
- What's happened?!... I forgot to dismount it again?!

<humorless mode>
Floppys have been default-formatted since the 80ies.
Should be in /etc/fstab. Do use Unicode.
Should be:
Don't use floppies. Do use GUIs.

Besides, AmigaOS was capable to detect the removal of a not-yet-unmounted floppy, and tell you in very precise terms what to do to recover from the situation. Since 1985. One of the things I never understood why other systems didn't copy that.

Solar, don't turn on humorless mode, cause it's just a joke and not needed to be parsed line-by-line. Disciples of Linux are LOLing (or just trolling?? ) at Windows, So why it's prohibited for me?
I see that a (not simple) question of "what-part-of-package-could-be-called-an-OS" become a new point of Holy War between Windows and Linux disciples. I don't like verbalism and don't see what to discuss more in this scope.

So you missed the implied <irony> flag?

Just for the papers: I am one of the few who claims that Windows and Linux suck both. It's just that for what I do, Linux sucks marginally less.

Y'all need to get on my level -- reppin Vtech 24/7 son