OSDev.org

How meny of you have made a working OS and if so can you plaece link to them

didn't we have a thread/page for this somewhere?

We had a sticky on "Your OS desigh" However, my senses tell me the poster is looking for OSes that are functional, rather than in some hello world stage.

For that reason, my own os doesn't yet qualify since its purely a hack that allows me to run programs on it.

Mine will currently run GNU bash and other ELF32 executables. It also has an automated testing suite that comes with it.

I'm doing stability and architectural improvements atm along with working on my automated testing system, but I would consider it 'sort of' functional.

JamesM wrote:but I would consider it 'sort of' functional.

If any of us had a *fully* functional OS, we wouldn't be working on it anymore (by definition), and presumably we wouldn't be hanging around this joint very much -- unless we were altruistic martyrs.

bewing wrote:If any of us had a *fully* functional OS, we wouldn't be working on it anymore (by definition), and presumably we wouldn't be hanging around this joint very much -- unless we were altruistic martyrs.

Even a *fully* function OS is not perfect and still needs improvement.

When have any os ever been fully functional?

functional < complete < perfect

Combuster wrote:functional < complete < perfect

I can load ELF binaries, have a partially-ported newlib, and processes can send events/messages to one another. Is my OS counted as fully functional? What is *fully* functional?

What I meant to say that an OS does *not* require 1001 programs to qualify. Bewing's definition is plainly exxagerated and does not match the common definition of functional:

Dictionary.com wrote:func·tion·al
(...)
3. having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed

Given that most people primarily want their OS to be used by everybody, so my guess is that for those OSes, that requirement is satisfied when becoming self-hosted is only the next step.

fully functional would then mean that *all* designed goals have been attained.

The standards you have set for yourself will determine wether you qualify or not. My kernel does not meet even one of the goals I had in mind, so in my case I can't consider it functional, even though I can run programs on it.

I thus leave it to everybody's subjectivity to decide wether to nominate your OS or not.

The link is in my signature.

To me a working OS, is any OS that does a job, it does not mean it need to do a 100 jobs.
Eg: If your OS was designed only to play CD's and you use it as a cdplayer, its a working OS.

Combuster wrote:Fully functional would then mean that *all* designed goals have been attained.

I was making a bit of a joke, I *did* use the words "fully functional", and I agree with your definition.
In a practical sense, IMO, an OS becomes fully functional when you end the beta testing phase. After that what you are doing is tweaking your code to provide extra functionality for users/developers, beyond your (possibly modified) design goals.
And usually, it is not the original OS developer programming that extra functionality, at that point, so I still say my original comment holds merit.

I have also not met any of my design goals yet, but I am very close to attaining 4 of them (out of maybe 40).