OSDev.org

To be honest, I don't really see the point of OSDeving on Windows, as most of the programming tools you need were intended for Linux. Sure, you could just take the source and compile it, but that is just a pain (especially when the closest thing to the make utility that I can find for Windows is 8 years or so out of date). Personally, I think that Linux is the proper choice, since everything you need (minus a cross compiler) can just be installed via package management. I use an 8 GB or so flash drive with lubuntu on it to do my OSDeving.

ScropTheOSAdventurer wrote:To be honest, I don't really see the point of OSDeving on Windows, as most of the programming tools you need were intended for Linux. Sure, you could just take the source and compile it, but that is just a pain (especially when the closest thing to the make utility that I can find for Windows is 8 years or so out of date). Personally, I think that Linux is the proper choice, since everything you need (minus a cross compiler) can just be installed via package management. I use an 8 GB or so flash drive with lubuntu on it to do my OSDeving.

Well, I am developing purely on windows using Visual Studio, I have managed to port both zlib, libpng, freetype2 and the TCC "C" compiler to my operating system, using NO linux tools, so I don't quite agree that it is "pointless" My c library is custom though, since I had to much trouble trying to port newlib using visual studio, so I will agree that it limits you to use visual studio and windows, but it's far from pointless.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I have a basic port of SDL done aswell, but they already had VS solution files, so that was quite easy

What I mean by pointless is that it might not be worth your time. For me on Lubuntu, I just install the packages I need. Then I run my custom install script (a fragile script, I may add, but it works and I am too lazy to add error checking to it) for my cross compiler, let it be for about 30-45 minutes, and then I got a cross compiler ready to go. You on the other hand had to port multiple programs, and rewrite a crucial library. That is what I mean by pointless.

ScropTheOSAdventurer wrote:To be honest, I don't really see the point of OSDeving on Windows, as most of the programming tools you need were intended for Linux. Sure, you could just take the source and compile it, but that is just a pain (especially when the closest thing to the make utility that I can find for Windows is 8 years or so out of date). Personally, I think that Linux is the proper choice, since everything you need (minus a cross compiler) can just be installed via package management. I use an 8 GB or so flash drive with lubuntu on it to do my OSDeving.

Replace 'Linux' with UNIX, some of the tools that we use have existed long before linux.

Ok, so I forgot those people that use BSD, but you get my point!

ScropTheOSAdventurer wrote:To be honest, I don't really see the point of OSDeving on Windows, as most of the programming tools you need were intended for Linux.

Perhaps this won't apply to him, but don't make that statement too general. Personal preferences aside, there exist plenty of tools which were intended for Windows, such as Visual Studio.

ScropTheOSAdventurer wrote:Sure, you could just take the source and compile it, but that is just a pain (especially when the closest thing to the make utility that I can find for Windows is 8 years or so out of date).

Presuming you're talking about Cygwin (I saw your other posts in this thread, too), that's just not true. The latest package is for version 4.00 and they have always been more or less on time with make.

ScropTheOSAdventurer wrote:Personally, I think that Linux is the proper choice, since everything you need (minus a cross compiler) can just be installed via package management.

Everything you just said about Linux also applies for Cygwin in the case of the "standard" tools used by the community.

Combuster wrote:Considering GRUB having a reputation of being a pain on Windows, that's not quite a fair statement.

Well, that's true, but last time I tried, I was able to at least build even though installation was broken---good enough. I know they took out the package because of some incompatibility the GRUB people were still looking into. I don't know what the status is for the latest version. That said, unless I had a specific requirement not met by some readily available binaries, I too would pick the less time-consuming route. On the other hand, if what I've said still applies, going through a forum seems more wasteful than either, at least if you've already got Cygwin set up.

Q: You've both expressed preference for GRUB Legacy rather than 2.00. I'm curious what the reason for that is. I've had no problems with it.

Everything I said about cygwin is this:

You have to also note that cygwin is slow and has problems compiling some software. Plus they took out GRUB legacy utility software (like grub-mkrescue) out of the package management deal, and they flagged the GRUB 2 utility tools package obsolete. Even then the package I got was problematic.

About GRUB, I do not have a preference for either GRUB legacy or 2, but I guess you should get along with the program and use it, as grub legacy is well, legacy.

About make:

I am talking just Windows.

http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/make.htm is the only place where I can find make binaries for Windows. Last update was in '06.

Everything you just said about Linux also applies for Cygwin in the case of the "standard" tools used by the community.

Read my previous post about Cygwin.

Cygwin has packages so how about one of the Cygwin mirrors (e.g., x86, x86-64)? I expect these packages target Cygwin so you'll still want the Cygwin DLL. Also, there's MinGW.

For the final time, I wasn't talking about Make in a cygwin context, but in a Windows context, aka as a Windows executable that doesn't link to the Cygwin DLLs.

Who cares whether it does or doesn't? You added an artificial constraint. Why weren't you looking for a version of make whose maintainer's name starts with the letter D? Also, did you read my whole response? I also mentioned MinGW.

It wasn't meant to be an artificial restraint; I meant it as a way of classifying Cygwin applications and regular Windows applications. Also, I did forget about MinGW .

I don't know why you want to classify them differently. Look at it this way: It's just a regular Windows program, using a regular Windows DLL, which exports a few functions which "happen" to implement some POSIX/Linux functionality.

But at the end of the day, you either need Cygwin for it, or you don't. I have already outlined my complaints against Cygwin. I figure you may dispute speed, so I am going to add this justification for it: my cross-compiler, when I use my custom install script (which is based a good bit off our cross compiler tutorial at the wiki) it takes about 30-45 minutes to install when I use Lubuntu. Using Cygwin, it took about two hours.

How often do you suppose he will need to build enormous projects from scratch? Even if his project ever reaches that stage (highly unlikely), a big part of the reason for using Cygwin is using UNIX building tools, meaning time will only be spent on small changes everytime.

Fair, but I like going all the way (big Linux fan if you haven't noticed ) .