Thanks for information. But I do not want to implement them soon (being too lazy ). I don't know why but now I think my font is also looks good.seuti wrote: So you have an image with all of the characters and then you draw imaginary lines every 32 (or whatever character width you want) pixels, each space inside the grid is a sprite; you put all of the characters in your font there.
What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
You're welcome. Are you doing it with BIOS interrupts (with uploading fonts to graphics card)?omarrx024 wrote:Nice new font, thanks to muazzam!
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Yes. I'm using BIOS INT 0x10 AX = 0x1100.muazzam wrote:You're welcome. Are you doing it with BIOS interrupts (with uploading fonts to graphics card)?
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
- Combuster
- Member
- Posts: 9301
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:45 am
- Libera.chat IRC: [com]buster
- Location: On the balcony, where I can actually keep 1½m distance
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
As long as you keep sticking to bitmap fonts like those, you're holding on to one specific resolution and quite commonly ASCII as well. Also, taking an existing font and rendering it down into an image means you should be following the license of the source font as well. The technically correct way is to use a truetype library and find some fonts that are actually open for use and distribution.
Otherwise, the VGA font provided by the hardware is both free of copyright and readily available. If you need a prepared bitmap font, this is legal to use as well (free of ASCII limitations, but it doesn't currently cover arabic, unfortunately)
Otherwise, the VGA font provided by the hardware is both free of copyright and readily available. If you need a prepared bitmap font, this is legal to use as well (free of ASCII limitations, but it doesn't currently cover arabic, unfortunately)
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
I don't took an existing font. All characters are made exclusively by myself.Combuster wrote: Also, taking an existing font and rendering it down into an image means you should be following the license of the source font as well. The technically correct way is to use a truetype library and find some fonts that are actually open for use and distribution.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
A long time ago, I had broken "support" for writing in ext2 (creating files, etc.). When I moved my ext2 driver to a loadable module, I rewrote most of it from scratch and disabled the write support. That was over a year ago. Now, finally, after some late night hacking, write support is working again in ext2. There are still a number of things that aren't done (mostly related to removing and truncating files), but it's enough to build a binary with gcc that survives a reboot.
And after (closing vim and) rebooting:
And after (closing vim and) rebooting:
- AndrewAPrice
- Member
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:00 pm
- Location: USA (and Australia)
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Looking good Klange. Nice work!
My OS is Perception.
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
klange: Your OS will always be my inspiration and encouragement!
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Working on a scripting language that is embedded as part of the kernel itself and can be invoked using a system call.
Here's the script running: And the source code of that script:
Here's the script running: And the source code of that script:
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Got dlmalloc working (yay! ) for Calcium's kmalloc() and kfree(). Now I can get working on mmap() and munmap(), then I think I'll work on SMP. In the screenshot the VMM shows the sbrk() calls made to it by dlmalloc, which I though was kind of interesting. I've also done some work with VBE, and now have DejaVu Mono as the font. I still need to figure out how font licensing works...
-bace
-bace
"for example, turning off the system’s power through the movement of a large red switch" - the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
A whole scripting language through a system call..? Wow - that's cool. I'd probably do that, but my OS is going to need a lot of work first...omarrx024 wrote:Working on a scripting language that is embedded as part of the kernel itself and can be invoked using a system call.
-bace
"for example, turning off the system’s power through the movement of a large red switch" - the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Do you have TrueType font support?bace wrote:I've also done some work with VBE, and now have DejaVu Mono as the font.
Yes. The scripting language is embedded as part of the kernel itself. It is also portable; if my OS is ever ported to other platforms (non x86), the scripts can still run.bace wrote:A whole scripting language through a system call..?
There's no rush. Your OS is coming along nicely, seeing how little time it has been and how much you've achieved. You can focus on the system itself, and then work on scripting languages and stuff.bace wrote:I'd probably do that, but my OS is going to need a lot of work first...
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
As it is in assembly, you'll have to rewrite the "whole" OS to port to non-x86 architecture.omarrx024 wrote: It is also portable; if my OS is ever ported to other platforms (non x86), the scripts can still run.
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Of course I know that. I clearly said the scripts are portable.muazzam wrote:As it is in assembly, you'll have to rewrite the "whole" OS to port to non-x86 architecture.omarrx024 wrote: It is also portable; if my OS is ever ported to other platforms (non x86), the scripts can still run.
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
- max
- Member
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:23 am
- Libera.chat IRC: maxdev
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Does your OS have separate user- and kernel space? If so, why would you want to let scripts run in kernel space instead of userspace and therefore loose userspace security aspects?omarrx024 wrote:Working on a scripting language that is embedded as part of the kernel itself and can be invoked using a system call.
Also having it in kernel space *can* make it hard to add non-scripted functionality to scripts. For example, userspace programs might want to register native functions as script functions; are you planning to allow this (if yes, how?) or are there no binary programs & only scripts allowed at all?