Project Code Name: Vandior

XCHG · Post by **XCHG** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:46 am

Alright, so after about a year of doing Operating System Development, I finally decided to announce my Operating System to the public. The name of the Operating System is not final yet. The code name is called Vandior. Vandior's objectives revolve around:

Stability
Customizability

Vandior is not a clone of any other Operating System. The below list is the key features and details of Project Code Name: Vandior:

Kernel type: Hybrid Kernel.
Architecture: 32-bit Protected Mode.
Written in: NASM.
Current Kernel Version: 00.01b
Source Code: Closed Source.
Primary boot media: HDD
Developed components:
- ATA-1 IDE Driver (PIO)
- ATA-4 IDE Driver (PIO)
- CMOS Unit
- Kernel
- Physical Memory Manager
- PS/2 Mouse Driver
- Keyboard Driver
- RTC
- Text Mode Video Driver
- File System Driver (SSFS = Schematically Structured File System)

The first beta version of Vandior will be released on 20th December 2007. Followings are to-do(s) for the first beta release on the aforementioned date:

Finish writing the SSFS manager utility.
Finish writing the input-manager for the shell.
Finish the support of multi HDD/CD with the PIO driver.

I will keep attaching news/screen shots to this post. In the meantime, below is the screen-shot of the current DEBUG version of Vandior running in Bochs:

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:20 am

I will test it on some of my test PC's, when it's released and give you feed back.

XCHG · Post by **XCHG** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:47 am

That'd be really fantastic

Thank you Dex.

XCHG · Post by **XCHG** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:34 am

Hello everyone,

Just a quick post: I was curious if anybody wants to join me in creating this Operating System. The code is entirely written in NASM and is heavily documented and commented. Code units are separate and each of the units are prototyped and etc. Please let me know if you are interested.

piranha · Post by **piranha** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:49 am

I'm not interested in working on it, but I could test it out for you at release time.
The reasons I don't want to work on it: I can't do assembly well, I'm good at C, and I am working on my own OS.
-JL

XCHG · Post by **XCHG** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:16 pm

That's fair enough. Funny thing is that I am not good in C but fairly good in Assembly

I am starting to learn C because I want all/most of the device drivers in Vandior to be coded in C to save some time of development. I do appreciate your offer to test this OS after release

SonOFBelial · Post by **SonOFBelial** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:57 pm

XCHG wrote:Hello everyone,

Just a quick post: I was curious if anybody wants to join me in creating this Operating System. The code is entirely written in NASM and is heavily documented and commented. Code units are separate and each of the units are prototyped and etc. Please let me know if you are interested.

I recommend switching to an open source license, even if it is one that leaves you in full control of the project (disallows forks etc.). It will encourage people to contribute.

XCHG · Post by **XCHG** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:23 pm

To be honest, I am an Open-source kind of a person. If you look in my website, I do have all of my libraries and etc open-sourced. The reason I don't have my Operating System's code open to the public is that I don't see the reason why I should! I don't think people are going to learn anything from it since there are virtually millions of other people out there who are writing Operating System Development tutorials and furthermore, in my opinion, if anybody wants to learn something from it, that person would be unlikely to contribute to its development. I don't know, but that's just my opinion. I might think of making it open-source in the future though

Combuster · Post by **Combuster** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:08 am

I recommend switching to an open source license, even if it is one that leaves you in full control of the project (disallows forks etc.). It will encourage people to contribute.

Even then, the chances of finding a developer (or even a contributor) is close to zero. Testers however...

inflater · Post by **inflater** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:15 am

Hmm, oldskool DOS style. I like it!

But I don't have a idea what "CMOS Unit" is supposed to do

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:33 am

DexOS has a licence, that anyone who add something usefull to the the OS, gets the source code and becomes part owner.
Many things have been add to DexOS this way. If you go open source, you will get lots of down loads, but little help.

People who code, seem to get bored very easily, so do not like getting in voled in a long term project, but see it as a good challenge to add some part to a OS that interest them, plus they become part of it.

So i would go for this type of licence or stay closed source. You can alway write tut's, if you want to add to the OS Dev community.

SonOFBelial · Post by **SonOFBelial** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:22 pm

XCHG wrote:Hello everyone,

Just a quick post: I was curious if anybody wants to join me in creating this Operating System. The code is entirely written in NASM and is heavily documented and commented. Code units are separate and each of the units are prototyped and etc. Please let me know if you are interested.

I'd be happy to join you, but first I'd like to know the direction you are going with the OS (what is your "vision" for it?).

Also, it's always nice to see coders who comment there code well. ASM coders have very good habits as far as commenting, and I wish others would pick up on it.

ucosty · Post by **ucosty** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:32 am

Dex wrote:DexOS has a licence, that anyone who add something usefull to the the OS, gets the source code and becomes part owner.
Many things have been add to DexOS this way. If you go open source, you will get lots of down loads, but little help.

People who code, seem to get bored very easily, so do not like getting in voled in a long term project, but see it as a good challenge to add some part to a OS that interest them, plus they become part of it.

So i would go for this type of licence or stay closed source. You can alway write tut's, if you want to add to the OS Dev community.

That is Open Source. You're encouraging contributions from the public and allowing people to extend the base code.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:29 pm

@ucosty, I agree, but if i called it "open source", i would have lots of people saying if its open source, why can i not down load the source code.
As its not that i do not want people to have the code, i just want them to give something back to the project for it.

XCHG · Post by **XCHG** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:31 am

SonOFBelial wrote: I'd be happy to join you, but first I'd like to know the direction you are going with the OS (what is your "vision" for it?).

Also, it's always nice to see coders who comment there code well. ASM coders have very good habits as far as commenting, and I wish others would pick up on it.

The main goal of the project is simple: Creating an Operating System that we will actually use. So it is not a hobby Operating System. I work on this Operating System for almost 3 hours a day now that I am a full-time MSC student and normally about 9 hours a day when I get time.

The main audience are Programmers and Scientists. The whole Operating System will revolve mainly around the aforementioned groups of people. Therefore, I am going to port or write a simple C compiler as the first program that runs in the Operating System in the User-Land.

Dex wrote:People who code, seem to get bored very easily, so do not like getting in voled in a long term project, but see it as a good challenge to add some part to a OS that interest them, plus they become part of it.

I very much like this idea. That's actually how I feel when trying to contribute to an already-existing project. I wouldn't want to get "too" involved. I think I will try to get people involved using this idea. Thanks.