TBOS 1.1.0

This forums is for OS project announcements including project openings, new releases, update notices, test requests, and job openings (both paying and volunteer).
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

Image Titanium Bonfire Operating System 1.1.0 Image

Quick list of Major Changes (1.1.0):
  • hash 0.4.0 released with load command data removed and a borked 80x30 text mode introduced
  • normal, miniature panic screen implemented
  • added decimal printing calls and a simplified quote system
  • wrote a quick sysinfo.asm program, requires a 386 or higher, preferably a late 486DX2 or Pentium.
Developers' Notes:
zOMG this release was late. By about... oh, a month and a half. The projected release date was April 18th, and, well, we all know what day it is today. It's freaking June.

I had more plans for 1.1.0 to make it a bigger release, including a simple LFN layer for the FAT12-ness. Honestly? I hate FAT12. It's a b!tch. That's why I wanted to do an abstraction layer so my programs wouldn't have to deal with its evilness and work around it, but I guess either a) time got away from me, or b) I'm just too lazy. Oh, and there are always end-of-year school exams to blame.

Links:
Download: http://code.google.com/p/tbos2/download ... .zip&can=2
Website: http://www.tbos.co.nr/
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/tbproject

Cheezy Thanks:
Thanks for reading this post and hopefully downloading and testing TBOS! If and when you find bugs, report them here or on the blog (or both) and I'll have them fixed for 1.1.1.

-- Troy
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
M-Saunders
Member
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:11 am
Location: Oberbayern
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by M-Saunders »

Troy Martin wrote:I hate FAT12. It's a b!tch.
No it isn't Troy. You hate it because you don't understand it. You don't understand it because all your FAT12 code is copied and pasted from elsewhere, and you haven't learnt assembly sufficiently to understand the code. Your problems getting a very simple text file viewer to work show that you need to learn a lot more assembly.

FAT12 is a very limited filesystem, but it's also fundamentally very simple. A long filename scheme like TRANS.TBL is easy to implement. Let's just put this next to TCP/IP, multi-tasking, a text editor, a BASIC interpreter, a Tetris clone, a C cross-compiler, directory support, and all the other things you've talked about writing over the last year that have never materialised :-)

Seriously, don't blame stuff and call it a "b!tch" just because you don't understand it. Get your assembly skills to the level where you can write simple programs before tackling larger projects (without copying and pasting loads of code) and have a more informed opinion.

M
MikeOS -- simple, well-documented x86 real-mode OS written in assembly language
http://mikeos.sourceforge.net
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

Ye gods.

I meant because it's limited. I understand it well enough, thank you very much.
M-Saunders wrote:A long filename scheme like TRANS.TBL is easy to implement.
Yes. I know.

On a side note, I'm probably discontinuing this incarnation of TBOS in favour of a protected-mode one written in my native language, C, anyways, as I prefer C to assembly and would like to spend my time working on my own crap.
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
M-Saunders
Member
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:11 am
Location: Oberbayern
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by M-Saunders »

Troy Martin wrote:I meant because it's limited.
But how does that matter for a small, real mode floppy-disk OS? What do you need -- journalling? Variable cluster sizes? 8 exabyte file support? :-) FAT12 is perfectly fine in this case, and not a "b!tch". If you're really bothered about long filenames then learn assembly properly and add a TRANS.TBL-like implementation -- it'd be an afternoon job.
Troy Martin wrote:I understand it well enough, thank you very much.
That was quick! The last I saw, you were talking about adding directory support and then gave up on it and chucked it on the pile of TroyProjects :-)

M
MikeOS -- simple, well-documented x86 real-mode OS written in assembly language
http://mikeos.sourceforge.net
User avatar
01000101
Member
Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by 01000101 »

'Grats on the release!
Don't let M-Saunders ruin it as he obviously hasn't had his coffee.

I thought you were still going for 186 compatibility?
earlz
Member
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by earlz »

Troy Martin wrote: On a side note, I'm probably discontinuing this incarnation of TBOS in favour of a protected-mode one written in my native language, C, anyways, as I prefer C to assembly and would like to spend my time working on my own crap.
you do know their is a C compiler out there that can compile for 8086 and use _far and all that crap.. I think it might have been tinyCC
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

01000101 wrote:I thought you were still going for 186 compatibility?
Ahh, that's the OS itself that's 186 compatible, I never said anything about the programs :)
earlz wrote:
Troy Martin wrote: On a side note, I'm probably discontinuing this incarnation of TBOS in favour of a protected-mode one written in my native language, C, anyways, as I prefer C to assembly and would like to spend my time working on my own crap.
you do know their is a C compiler out there that can compile for 8086 and use _far and all that crap.. I think it might have been tinyCC
Yeah, but I want to try my hand at doing my own drivers and 64KB segmentation is limited. Oh, and the BIOS is often hack-filled and buggy, so PIO drivers are way better.
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
M-Saunders
Member
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:11 am
Location: Oberbayern
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by M-Saunders »

01000101 wrote:Don't let M-Saunders ruin it as he obviously hasn't had his coffee.
Beer more like :-) Seriously, I'm only posting because TBOS is mostly code that I wrote* (MikeOS bootloader, memory map, FAT12 code, IVT code, system calls etc). Indeed, Troy himself described TBOS as "a bad MikeOS clone". For months I've been trying to give ideas and advice, but clearly I fail and Troy will perpetually dream up grand ideas, ditch them, then copy-and-paste code and not learn anything en route. But I tried :-)

Mike

*(MikeOS is BSD licensed so that's fine, but nobody learns much from just copying and pasting.)
MikeOS -- simple, well-documented x86 real-mode OS written in assembly language
http://mikeos.sourceforge.net
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

I'm switching to C to rid myself of MikeOS code (which, Mike, your figures have been greatly exaggerated, the only system calls of yours in TBOS are the FAT ones and print_dec_word (apparently PD code however). I believe that makes it only 27 or so KB of source that is MikeOS.

And yes, I do admit, I do have MikeOS code in TBOS. But look at this:
M-Saunders wrote:MikeOS bootloader
Isn't that a public domain bootloader?
M-Saunders wrote:memory map
Heh, it works. But it is limiting and it's another reason I like my OS in C. :)
M-Saunders wrote:IVT code
I never got around to changing it, and it was implemented when I was a n00b.
M-Saunders wrote:etc
I can't think of anything else.
M-Saunders wrote:But I tried :-)
And it was an experience. But TBOS16 is soon to be history, with only minor patches and revisions. TBOS32 is the future for the Titanium Bonfire Operating System, and it shall proceed as planned.

*goes to look up FDC commands in the indispensable PC hardware book*
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
M-Saunders
Member
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:11 am
Location: Oberbayern
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by M-Saunders »

Meh. Your string/input system calls are instruction-by-instruction identical to earlier MikeOS releases and have exactly the same bugs and limitations in the same places. I rewrote the bootloader in 2.0. Up to you if you want to pretend you wrote them from scratch. Your OS is a major copy-and-paste effort, and TBOS32, looking at the screen, keyboard, common functions etc. are directly from JamesM/Bkerndev too.

There's nothing wrong with re-using code, and I may sound like a prick to some forum regulars here. But after a year of hearing countless plans and grand schemes Troy, yet all you do is copy and paste code, I've given up trying to help you with ideas and pointers. You're clearly not willing to learn despite my efforts and that's why none of the big ideas you've dreamt up have become actual code, and a mere text viewer is still beyond your grasp. I tried but you won't listen. Good luck with the next 100 TroyProjects :-)

M
MikeOS -- simple, well-documented x86 real-mode OS written in assembly language
http://mikeos.sourceforge.net
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

M-Saunders wrote:and TBOS32, looking at the screen, keyboard, common functions etc. are directly from JamesM/Bkerndev too.
I intend to only use those as a base, writing everything else from scratch using google and books as references. Granted, I may borrow some Ethernet driver code from 01000101, but that's a long way off. First I need to fix the triple fault in the timer interrupt :D
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
User avatar
neon
Member
Member
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:28 pm
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by neon »

Im not sure, but if you want to stay 16 bit, you -might- be able to use 16 bit C. (I emphasize "might" as i dont know of anyone who tried it.) It sounds like you are moving to use 32 bit protected mode though. Keep us updated :D

I do have to say that I am impressed with your post, however. It has a nice professional feel to it imho.

(*edit: I am glad that you are no longer taking code. This is actually one of the reasons I am not releasing any of mine...so no one takes it as their own)
Last edited by neon on Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OS Development Series | Wiki | os | ncc
char c[2]={"\x90\xC3"};int main(){void(*f)()=(void(__cdecl*)(void))(void*)&c;f();}
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

neon wrote:Im not sure, but if you want to stay 16 bit, you -might- be able to use 16 bit C. (I emphasize "might" as i dont know of anyone who tried it.) It sounds like you are moving to use 32 bit protected mode though. Keep us updated :D
The whole point of my moving to pmode is removing the BIOS-ity and the 4GB of theoretical memory to access without paging/segmentation :) And I likes me GCC/Linux. :mrgreen:
I do have to say that I am impressed with your post, however. It has a nice professional feel to it imho.
Hey, thanks! I was going for the professional thing. I find that professional announcement posts attract more people than a "hai thar check out mi OS, thxbi" written in twenty seconds.
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
User avatar
Love4Boobies
Member
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Love4Boobies »

Tell us more about the neat logo :)
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.", Popular Mechanics (1949)
[ Project UDI ]
User avatar
Troy Martin
Member
Member
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Location: Langley, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: TBOS 1.1.0

Post by Troy Martin »

Hehe, okay, shades of grey and black run through Photoshop's blue glow layer style and the opacity thing :mrgreen:
Image
Image
Solar wrote:It keeps stunning me how friendly we - as a community - are towards people who start programming "their first OS" who don't even have a solid understanding of pointers, their compiler, or how a OS is structured.
I wish I could add more tex
Post Reply