OSDev.org

Has anybody use it? If yes, can you tell people your experiences with it ?

Edit: I haven't figure out how to build examples yet ...

I've looked at it out of interest, but have never really used it. The code is fairly clean and straight forward, but the entire project is quite out of date as well. The last release was, I think, in 2002. It also uses a COM-like model, which I personally have never liked.

Also, IMO, the licensing is a mess. All the code written by the FLUX group is GPL'd, and other code donated to the OSKit is covered under various licenses like the BSD, Mach, or X11 licenses.

It's a good resource for learning the basics and even some of the more advanced topics, but I wouldn't base my own kernel off of it. If you just write code to use the OSkit's functions for everything, then you really won't be learning much as to how an OS works. IMO, if you're interested, use the code as an example of how to implement a feature (like enabling paging or perhaps how a VM functions), but don't otherwise use the OSkit code.

LibOSdk is another option.

http://libosdk.berlios.de/

I've never been used OSkit's before,but i downloaded LibOSdk,it's very poor library to develop an OS, even rubbish OS ...



CheerS,
a.T.d

If you have criticism, please let it be constructive rather than this kind of derogatory remarks, thanks.

Well, i apologize if some one understand my POST as derogatory remarks

i can explain why criticism:

The library does not contain the basic functions of the operating system (e.g FS,paging,I/O,...etc),in other side not even complete implementation of string.h,

...,in other word "newbei's lib"

CheerS,
a.T.d

Hi,

i586coder wrote:Well, i apologize if some one understand my POST as derogatory remarks

i can explain why criticism:

The library does not contain the basic functions of the operating system (e.g FS,paging,I/O,...etc),in other side not even complete implementation of string.h,

...,in other word "newbei's lib"

CheerS,
a.T.d

Why is what the library doesn't do relevant? If you didn't use the library you wouldn't have FS, paging or I/O functions either, so how can the absence of such functions be deemed a flaw?

YO!

JamesM wrote: so how can the absence of such functions be deemed a flaw?

not exactly , if we talking about library for OS, that mean library should contain such functions


CheerS,
a.T.d

I just created the world's best OS ever. It's 0 bytes and does nothing.

Combuster wrote:If you have criticism, please let it be constructive rather than this kind of derogatory remarks, thanks.

While I'm pretty sure you were replying to this post:

i586coder wrote:I've never been used OSkit's before,but i downloaded LibOSdk,it's very poor library to develop an OS, even rubbish OS ...

It'd have been nice if you quoted the post you were replying to just so my ego wouldn't be unneccessarily hurt in the cross-fire.

Even it is rubbish, I will give it a try. Don't know if I can found something interesting

Yeah. After some minutes 'researching', I can say LibOSdk is surely a piece of rubish. OSkit is 1000 times better !

quanganht wrote:Yeah. After some minutes 'researching', I can say LibOSdk is surely a piece of rubish. OSkit is 1000 times better !

If LibOSDK is rubbish then what your OS is?

quanganht wrote:Yeah. After some minutes 'researching', I can say LibOSdk is surely a piece of rubish. OSkit is 1000 times better !

As Combuster said before -- if you have criticism, let it be constructive rather than (extermely vague) derogatory remarks.

LibOSDK isn't nearly as complete as oskit, sure, and it's limited to i386 only. But as a project it is also a lot newer than the oskit, and it (unlike oskit) is still maintained.

i586coder wrote:The library does not contain the basic functions of the operating system (e.g FS,paging,I/O,...etc),in other side not even complete implementation of string.h,

I just had a look at libOSDK, mostly because it seems I have nothing better to do than post rebuttals on here tonight (I have to get my post count up somehow). It seems you're wrong in that libOSDK actually does support paging. Take a look at i386/paging.s in the source.

I don't think that libOSDK has to (or even should) offer functions to cover filesystems and I/O. There's many filesystems out there. If it offered one or two implementations, would you call it 'rubbish' if neither of the offered filesystems happened to be your favorite?

Along those lines, why should a library that aims to be an Operating System Development Kit offer a complete implementation of string.h, which is a function in the C Standard Library? Yes, you may need a minimal C lib in your kernel environment, but a library that focuses on offering cpu-specific functions like libOSDK shouldn't necessarily have to also provide glibc! Not everyone needs to use all of string.h in their kernel; I certainly don't. Also, just because a nearly compete C lib is included in oskit is no reason for libosdk to do the same.

If you want to use string.h in your kernel code, go write your own implementation. It's not tough. Or you could use Solar's excellent PDCLIB or borrow it from one of the BSDs.

i586coder wrote:...,in other word "newbei's lib"

Typos aside, I fail to see how either libosdk or even OSkit could be called a "newbie's lib." While I personally wouldn't use either one, I have thought about starting my own project that would provide something similar. Newbies may use these libs to get them going, but more advanced people who just want to write a network stack, for instance, could also these libs. Sure, they could also take the source code of linux or openbsd and write their network stack there, but both of those codebases have huge learning curves, while that of the OSKit is fairly clean and easy to understand.

My only gripes about libosdk are that it is written entirely in assembly (excluding the example OSes) and there are virtually no comments in the source. I was pleasantly surprised to see an example written in Pascal though, and it seems that eventually there's plans for an example written in basic as well.

My faults. Somehow, when I extract the zipped file, some files are missed. But ".s" ? Relying on Asm is not good. Pure C code will be much easier to understand and maintain, without platform dependent. And OSkit provide much more modules and libs.