OSDev.org

Aren't you maybe posting a little bit too much?

omarrx024 wrote:without depending on [...] open source stuff

What's your problem with open source? There's nothing wrong with it. If there's something wrong with a certain type of software, that is proprietary software, not FOSS.

no92 wrote:Aren't you maybe posting a little bit too much?

Keep them coming. Don't let no92 try and ruin the motivation

omarrx024 wrote:without depending on [...] open source stuff

What's your problem with open source? There's nothing wrong with it. If there's something wrong with a certain type of software, that is proprietary software, not FOSS.

If depending on nothing actually is the challenge, why condemn it?

Besides, I equally refuse to include GNU stuff since GPL is incompatible with my choice of public domain licensing (and most things GNU are an example of how not to do things in a modern OS design).

no92 wrote:Aren't you maybe posting a little bit too much?

I've been thinking that to myself, but I have soooooooo much motivation I have to pass it to other too .. I can't help but post more !!

no92 wrote:What's your problem with open source? There's nothing wrong with it. If there's something wrong with a certain type of software, that is proprietary software, not FOSS.

My problem is that the copyright is not mine. So, I create my own tools instead, like I am doing now with my assembler. I know that too, I don't like proprietary software. Open source software is great, but in my own personal OS, I want everything in it to be entirely mine. I don't think there's a problem with that.

Combuster wrote:

no92 wrote:Aren't you maybe posting a little bit too much?

Keep them coming. Don't let no92 try and ruin the motivation

Oh thanks! I've been thinking that I've been posting too much. But if I'm giving free motivation, then it's good to encourage other members here.

Combuster wrote:Besides, I equally refuse to include GNU stuff since GPL is incompatible with my choice of public domain licensing (and most things GNU are an example of how not to do things in a modern OS design).

I have nothing against the GNU GPL. My own OS is licensed under GNU GPLv3 and the license is fine. The only reason I don't want to port FASM or NASM or any other assembler is because the copyright is not mine. But I have nothing wrong with their licenses. So instead, I'm writing my own assembler, one that I own copyright.

Hah, cool. I wanted to write my own assembler for my OS but I stopped working on it a while ago; (the file system driver had a bug which I couldn't solve, so I gave up).

But if you want to be self hosting won't your assembler probably require more memory? I see that your programs begin at an absolute address 0xC5000 which is like 50K in segment, leaving you only ~15K of memory to be used by the program. Or am I missing something?

Bender wrote:Hah, cool. I wanted to write my own assembler for my OS but I stopped working on it a while ago; (the file system driver had a bug which I couldn't solve, so I gave up).

But if you want to be self hosting won't your assembler probably require more memory? I see that your programs begin at an absolute address 0xC5000 which is like 50K in segment, leaving you only ~15K of memory to be used by the program. Or am I missing something?

My programs are loaded to 0xC500, not 0xC5000. I am well aware of this, and I plan to implement relocation, after my assembler is finished.
I use A20 to access memory up to 0xFFFF:0xFFFF, and my assembler needs a temporary place to keep the assembled file. This place is 1 MB (0xFFFF:0x10).
Oh, and you should look for the bug and fix it. My filesystem driver also had a bug which took me about a week to fix, and at the end my mistake was that I forgot one "popa"
You never know how simple your mistakes are! Keep trying!

Sorry for the rude appeal of my post at the top, I didn't want to demotivate you.

omarrx024 wrote:The only reason I don't want to port FASM or NASM or any other assembler is because the copyright is not mine. But I have nothing wrong with their licenses. So instead, I'm writing my own assembler, one that I own copyright.

Ok, but I'm really confused by this. It doesn't really make sense to me. Where's the problem of using software of that you don't own the copyright (as long as they are licensed under a FOSS license)?

If you just love to be able to say that your OS is made entirely by you, including the software, you can tell that. We're not cold robots - we're humans, just like you (with a strange hobby, but that doesn't matter as we share it)!

no92 wrote:Sorry for the rude appeal of my post at the top, I didn't want to demotivate you.

omarrx024 wrote:The only reason I don't want to port FASM or NASM or any other assembler is because the copyright is not mine. But I have nothing wrong with their licenses. So instead, I'm writing my own assembler, one that I own copyright.

Ok, but I'm really confused by this. It doesn't really make sense to me. Where's the problem of using software of that you don't own the copyright (as long as they are licensed under a FOSS license)?

If you just love to be able to say that your OS is made entirely by you, including the software, you can tell that. We're not cold robots - we're humans, just like you (with a strange hobby, but that doesn't matter as we share it)!

That's exactly what I love. I want to write every single bit of the OS and its software myself. I also want to own all the copyrights.

Do you want to sue stupid copypasters?

no92 wrote: Do you want to sue stupid copypasters?

No, but copy/paste in OS development is a terrible idea. It is really easy for anyone to copy all the code of a good tutorial and say they did it. It's not easy to know what is going on behind the scenes, and how the OS is working under the hood. Copy/paste is just for people who are too weak to understand everything about what they're doing (no offense!)

omarrx024 wrote: That's exactly what I love. I want to write every single bit of the OS and its software myself. I also want to own all the copyrights.

Please be honest, you are using master boot record code from my OS. Maybe it is not copy-pasted but it is copied with changes here and there and changes in label names. I am not discouraging you to copy my OS but reminding you that "every single bit" is not your.
Feel free to copy other parts of my OS as it is in public domain even without giving me credits .

omarrx024 wrote:That's exactly what I love. I want to write every single bit of the OS and its software myself. I also want to own all the copyrights.

For the record, the BSD license allows people to use your stuff as long as they keep your copyright notice and warranty disclaimer intact. So you'll still be the copyright holder and people will see your source code, possibly help you with something and improve their own work along the way. Everyone profits.

Of course proprietary is also perfectly fine. It's up to you to decide about the license. If there's anything worse than people hating on open-source, it's people hating on proprietary. I DEMAND ALL SOURCE CODEZ!

DaviUnic wrote:For the record, the BSD license allows people to use your stuff as long as they keep your copyright notice and warranty disclaimer intact. So you'll still be the copyright holder and people will see your source code, possibly help you with something and improve their own work along the way. Everyone profits.

I use the GNU GPLv3.

muazzam wrote:Feel free to copy other parts of my OS as it is in public domain even without giving me credits .

How can he find the source code if you haven't posted any link or information about your OS yet? Aren't you running your own "company" for that (which suggests that your OS is proprietary)?

no92 wrote:

muazzam wrote:Feel free to copy other parts of my OS as it is in public domain even without giving me credits .

How can he find the source code if you haven't posted any link or information about your OS yet? Aren't you running your own "company" for that (which suggests that your OS is proprietary)?

Muzzam posted the source for his OS and edited it from the post a few days similar.
I still have it and omarrx024's boot code is quite similar to the code Muzzam posted.