OSDev.org

MessiahAndrw wrote: I remember copying that out of an old Commodore book and I ported it over to QBasic.

Hehe. I guess a copy of that shall be the first game written for my OS.

MessiahAndrw wrote:My first OS project was a graphical shell/desktop for DOS I made in QuickBasic. Programs were big scripts (using a cut down version of BASIC) that were interpreted by the shell. Multitasking was achieved by switching the current interpreted line and local variables. I wrote a web browser, paint program, and word processor in my interpreted BASIC..

I thought it was impressive back when I was 12 (6 years ago).

EDIT: It was called BINX (something Interactive something something).

That sounds a lot like my first attempt. Mine didn't do as much as yours though; I think it did have some sort of primitive multitasking though, but I never had any word processors or anything like that running in it.

My first real operating system didn't do much more than set up the keyboard and console, and display a few messages.

Do you mean that text skiing/racing game that looked similar to below?

Yes. I added a new things to it, like "weather" and "difficulty" (in "quotes" because they were so simple), and I used other ASCII characters.

Hehe. I guess a copy of that shall be the first game written for my OS.

See? That's a good "game" to my OS
Aargh, I don't have it, i lost it due to my disk reformatting and I dont have the spare... Never mind, I try to construct a another one.

inflater

inflater wrote:The very first programming in me inside began with writing .BATs for MS-BOSS and Windows. The "products" I've made was preferably system detection and games.

I was playing with QBASIC too when i was 10 (and with MS VC++ too ), after that I got a, well, QBASIC that could compile to EXE. The process how I found it was not very legal though...

I found on my local library a "Do you want to try it with programming?", when I was 11. It was a bit dated book from year 1984 or so, oh sweet communism .

Are you equating 1984 (distopian novel) to communism
I don't insult your politcal persuasion, don't attack mine.

Actually, it was programming in BASIC for microprocessors Z80 and MOS 6502. The code was magically backward-compatible with Qbasic on my former 80486DX4 and Windows 95. So I've made a simple "racing" games, jokes ("CMOS damaged" with flickering screen and bleeping noises), and text adventure games. It was fun alright, and simple.

In 12, I discovered emu8086 and I saw a simple operating system "kernel" there. That was my first attempt to make a OS, it was a curious boot sector with kernel no larger than 3 kB

inflater

I started coding when I was 12-ish, mostly in Java (I went to the bookstore, grabbed a book and it was java; if you have been to the bookstore in the last 5 years you know what i mean). Then I learned x86 ASM and C. I am now working on my first OS project (actually 2): a small CLI OS written purely in ASM (w/ plans for a GUI). I'm also working on writing a GUI on top of (Free)DOS, which, while still in design, will likely be written in LISP. It's sort of a pilot for my current OS (from scratch) to test out design stuff.

Happy hacking

anon19287473 wrote:

inflater wrote:The very first programming in me inside began with writing .BATs for MS-BOSS and Windows. The "products" I've made was preferably system detection and games.

I was playing with QBASIC too when i was 10 (and with MS VC++ too ), after that I got a, well, QBASIC that could compile to EXE. The process how I found it was not very legal though...

I found on my local library a "Do you want to try it with programming?", when I was 11. It was a bit dated book from year 1984 or so, oh sweet communism .

Are you equating 1984 (distopian novel) to communism
I don't insult your politcal persuasion, don't attack mine.

Whoa. Calm down. I think he meant the book was from 1984. There was nothing about the book named 1984. I'm assuming he was simply saying that that book was the best his library had, because of the current political situation in his country which involved communism. (Inflater, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Note: Also please try to remember that many of the people here are from countries where communism is frowned upon. So, there's bound to be some bias against it. It's just the way the world is after the whole Soviet Union thingie.

anon19287473 wrote: Are you equating 1984 (distopian novel) to communism
I don't insult your politcal persuasion, don't attack mine.

What didn't it have to do with communism, the entire Political System was based upon Soviet Russia... his biggest influences were all from Stalin... It describes a totalitarian state which accepts people despite race, i can't think of anything less communist.

No no no, don't start a flamewar because of the "sweet communism" sentence

I mean this because we had communism from 1948 to 1993, 1.1.1993 we we're independent. I mean "sweet communsim" like good old days.
By the way, do you know what is a Velvet Revolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

inflater

Tyler wrote:

anon19287473 wrote: Are you equating 1984 (distopian novel) to communism
I don't insult your politcal persuasion, don't attack mine.

What didn't it have to do with communism, the entire Political System was based upon Soviet Russia... his biggest influences were all from Stalin... It describes a totalitarian state which accepts people despite race, i can't think of anything less communist.

Stalinist Russia can hardly be considered Communism (because of the obvious hypocrisy)... ... Your right, I cant't think of anything less communist.

What does the Velvet Revolution have to do w/ this, thats 1989?

Whoa. Calm down. I think he meant the book was from 1984. There was nothing about the book named 1984. I'm assuming he was simply saying that that book was the best his library had, because of the current political situation in his country which involved communism. (Inflater, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Oh. I made an assumption, becuase he was talking about books and the library. Sorry for the misunderstanding

What does the Velvet Revolution have to do w/ this, thats 1989?

1950,1970,1980,1988 - well the years are almost the same, but with little diferences in former Czechoslovakia.

inflater

Note: Also please try to remember that many of the people here are from countries where communism is frowned upon. So, there's bound to be some bias against it. It's just the way the world is after the whole Soviet Union thingie.

I see Communism as a necessary transition to Anarchism (they seem difference, but really only have one substanial difference, the requirement of participation). Communism w/o a governing body is Anarchism

anon19287473 wrote:

Note: Also please try to remember that many of the people here are from countries where communism is frowned upon. So, there's bound to be some bias against it. It's just the way the world is after the whole Soviet Union thingie.

I see Communism as a necessary transition to Anarchism (they seem difference, but really only have one substanial difference, the requirement of participation). Communism w/o a governing body is Anarchism

So then, after the anarchism is replaced by communism, would the plan be to have the communism eventually replaced with a democracy? Am I following your logic?

Eh, as an anarchocapitalist, I feel like I simply have to break into this discussion now.

There are at least two axis of relevance here: whether you stand "left" (as in communism) or "right" (as in capitalism) is one axis. Whether you are for authority or against it (=anarchy) is a completely separate issue. Trying to mix those into a single question, will do no good whatsoever.

I'm personally all for less authority. That naturally puts me into the direction of anarchy. But I am also a strong believer in free trade and personal property. On the traditional axis that puts me fairly far to the right. Ofcourse that means compromises in equality of people, but you have to pick either equality or freedom as the two necessarily conflict.

True capitalism is anarchy: in true capitalism, the market will decide, so there is no need for any centralized authority. Rather any perceived authority is simply the result of many separate transactions.

anon19287473 wrote: Stalinist Russia can hardly be considered Communism (because of the obvious hypocrisy)... ... Your right, I cant't think of anything less communist.

Actually "Stalinist Russia" is a prime example of Communism. That is exactly what communism is. The Marxist ideas behind it are even worse in my opinion as they require humanity to be totally retarded. At least with Soviet Russia, the upper class stayed rich.

mystran wrote:Eh, as an anarchocapitalist, I feel like I simply have to break into this discussion now.

There are at least two axis of relevance here: whether you stand "left" (as in communism) or "right" (as in capitalism) is one axis. Whether you are for authority or against it (=anarchy) is a completely separate issue. Trying to mix those into a single question, will do no good whatsoever.

I'm personally all for less authority. That naturally puts me into the direction of anarchy. But I am also a strong believer in free trade and personal property. On the traditional axis that puts me fairly far to the right. Ofcourse that means compromises in equality of people, but you have to pick either equality or freedom as the two necessarily conflict.

True capitalism is anarchy: in true capitalism, the market will decide, so there is no need for any centralized authority. Rather any perceived authority is simply the result of many separate transactions.

Property is theft... in capitalism it is possible for someone to make money simply by manipulating their resources and not contributing anything.

A good exmaple is someone like Bill Gates. How much work do you think Bill Gates does? MY guess is it isn't 70 billion dollars worth, so where did that money come from? He syphoned the lifeforce of his workers by paying them less than the amount of wealth they were creating a kept the rest.

I understand your point, however, I think in a truely anarchist society, capitalism would slowly deteriorate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass , theres most than just left and right, at least i think so.

I'd really rather not start a flamewar, and it seems this has gotten a tad of topic, so lets drop it.

anon19287473 wrote:Property is theft... in capitalism it is possible for someone to make money simply by manipulating their resources and not contributing anything.

Property is theft? Property is the result of working. Yes, working. By working you get property. Not contributing to anything? I'm sorry, please show me a communist state more productive than a capitalist one. The most productive countries in the world today are capitalist. The US, France, Britain, Germany, etc. Yet, according to you, their people don't contribute to anything. Can you explain this?

anon19287473 wrote:A good exmaple is someone like Bill Gates. How much work do you think Bill Gates does? MY guess is it isn't 70 billion dollars worth, so where did that money come from? He syphoned the lifeforce of his workers by paying them less than the amount of wealth they were creating a kept the rest.

Regardless of what GNU thinks Bill Gates is a brilliant business man who was able to manipulate his wealth to form a multi billion dollar cooperation employing millions (?) of people. He has given millions away through his fund, and done more than most people in history. I think he deserves his billions.

anon19287473 wrote:I understand your point, however, I think in a truely anarchist society, capitalism would slowly deteriorate.

**Cough**Soviet Union**Cough**communism**Cough**collapsed**Cough**

anon19287473 wrote:I'd really rather not start a flamewar, and it seems this has gotten a tad of topic, so lets drop it.

Why drop it? Why not go on?