OSDev.org

Love4Boobies wrote:It has leaked. "Poison" your mind? Man, you're lame

Lame? Working with it could potentially jeopardize projects people are involved with. Presumably the ROS developers stay well clear.

I'd often thought that Win2k leak years ago was intentional just in case open source became a "problem"

ThymeCypher wrote:ProjectOZ is an operating systems project environment that uses the native kernel interfaces of Windows to provide simple, clean, user-mode abstractions of the CPU, MMU, trap mechanism, and physical memory that can be used to perform experiments in operating systems principles. ProjectOZ comes with a basic OS (BasicOZ) built on top of the SPACE abstractions.

Essentially, it sounds to me like it is nothing more than a simple NT 1.0 kernel with a full HAL. The purpose is isn't to rebuild windows or understand NT, rather to try new things (As my dumb @$$ has been doing since I found this site) with developing operating systems, and possibly stumble upon a black hole of speed and power never before tapped by an OS. That or find the hidden choc-o-chip cookie found in every processor through the HAL. Either way, it's probably the source for NT 1.0 with the HAL partially compiled.

well first sorry for my late reply..but is possible to rebuild it...if it's a simple NT 1.0 kernel with a full HAL can it be compiled or assemled in a way that you can build a simple windows or sth like that

like you have your linux from scratch but then a windows from scratch or is this something like dont do it...or am i wrong?

Brynet-Inc wrote: If you like Windows for some unexplainable reason, join the ReactOS project..

It's not so much a case of like Windows as hate Linux.

Well, then, that's not much of an argument for making a Windows clone anyway . Let's not turn this into a Linux/Windows war.

Hi, I my not be as common to all of these forums as others and I'm not trolling or wanting a win/linux war on here but in my opinion there should be no war it's like bhuddism versus Islam, most *nix users over 12 just recognise it as an alternative choice there aare just as man glaring holes in linux as in windows, OSX and QNX + all others, if there was ever a perfect OS it never became public.

On this issue I have been following ReactOS for just such a long time!, can they use windows display drivers like Nvidia ones yet, if not then meh why even bother, windows only success has been its DirectX link with the GFX vendors, it's the only reason why I use it and the main reason I treat OS deving as a hobby.

Just my two cents (again) [*]

lcowles wrote:most *nix users over 12 just recognise it as an alternative choice there aare just as man glaring holes in linux as in windows, OSX and QNX + all others, if there was ever a perfect OS it never became public.

It's impossible to know if there are just as many holes in Windows as Linux.

steveklabnik wrote:

lcowles wrote:most *nix users over 12 just recognise it as an alternative choice there aare just as man glaring holes in linux as in windows, OSX and QNX + all others, if there was ever a perfect OS it never became public. [sic]

It's impossible to know if there are just as many holes in Windows as Linux.

Oh, Steve True. Of course, Microsoft has the unfortunate circumstance of having the larger market share and thus the most public notice of their bugs. Linux was certainly not written to be marketable, and therefore shares its own mess of embarrassing bugs and questionable design decisions. The history of both is very interesting, of course, and good knowledge to have.

This research kernel is not likely to be much more help than the Linux source if what was said by others in this thread is true. Curious, for any of you that have read the source given, what does it give you that isn't already documented (dare I say adequately). Whatever is of worth should be documented and the rest thrown away. I can guess, with confidence, that this supposed kernel doesn't represent the point of view of a modern MINIX. Nor would using the internals of the Windows OS be of any worth to a serious academic when you can't reach the actual source of anything to begin with.

ot: I suddenly wonder if Microsoft reads these forums, contributes, and/or asks for help in the technical realm of things.

Wilkie wrote:Oh, Steve True. Of course, Microsoft has the unfortunate circumstance of having the larger market share and thus the most public notice of their bugs. Linux was certainly not written to be marketable, and therefore shares its own mess of embarrassing bugs and questionable design decisions. The history of both is very interesting, of course, and good knowledge to have.

Of course. If I thought Linux was great, I wouldn't be writing an OS, now would I? . Windows having a larger market means that the mistakes they admit to get a lot more press, but they have the advantage of not having to admit mistakes. Linux, on the other hand, admits every mistake publicly. Well, every mistake that's found, anyway. I'm sure that there's some people at the NSA who're keeping some exploits hush-hush.

It is perfectly possible to build an OS based on WRK or on a retail NT kernel, none of the Windows systems are built into the kernel, if you write a good userland for the NT kernel you could say that that is an OS, to do this all you need is the DDK, and knowledge of the Native API (NTOS native userland).

How many hours does it take to build it on a modern machine? I evaluated WinCE some years ago, and it took several hours to build, and even minimal configuration changes took a very long time to build. To add to that, WinCE did not even run its applications at ring 3, but in kernel-space. Even more funny with this monstrous system was that it didn't work unless it had the development machine hooked-up. It couldn't even run Win32 applications built outside of the WinCE environment.

No, I will never take another look at another M$ kernel.

Wilkie wrote:ot: I suddenly wonder if Microsoft reads these forums, contributes, and/or asks for help in the technical realm of things.

I can assure you that they don't. This place is mostly for hobbyists while developers from MS are professionals OS developers. It's more like we would ask Microsoft for help.

OSwhatever wrote:

Wilkie wrote:ot: I suddenly wonder if Microsoft reads these forums, contributes, and/or asks for help in the technical realm of things.

I can assure you that they don't. This place is mostly for hobbyists while developers from MS are professionals OS developers. It's more like we would ask Microsoft for help.

Hahaha. You must be yoking. Bill Gates wrote MSDOS in his garage, and the quality of the whole project was not professional, but the worst kind of hack you can imagine. Later code from MS does not make me think they have left the amateuer state yet.

Besides, you won't become a professional OS-developper just by signing-up with Microsoft. It takes talent.

And I'm sure there are professional programmers here. At least I'm a professional programmer with 25 years experience.

rdos wrote:Bill Gates wrote MSDOS in his garage...

As berkus said, this is not true. Tim Patterson wrote it (as QDOS, to run MS-Basic) in an office at Seattle Computer Products (in four months), SCP licensed it (as 86-DOS), and Microsoft merely expanded it.

And no-one would ever credit Bill Gates with being a great engineer (one that creates superior product). However, as a businessman (one that creates operating profit), he has proven his world class several times over.

Later code from MS does not make me think they have left the amateuer state yet.

They have managed to create what companies pay money for. That's usually significantly different from what "geeks" expect from an OS, or what would technically constitute a "good" OS.

I could come up with the world greatest OS at the technology board of my company tomorrow. It wouldn't even enter the test field, because the first three questions would be: "Is it like Windows, so we don't have to re-train our employers?" - "Who is going to provide the tech support including SLA's for availability etc.?" - "Is it certified as supported platform by our third-party vendors?"

Heck, we're paying a ****load of money to SuSE for fully-certified SLES licences simply because you don't get a certified Oracle installation on an OpenSuSE box. This business has ceased to be about superior technology long ago, it's about certifications and contracts today.

Besides, you won't become a professional OS-developper just by signing-up with Microsoft. It takes talent.

That's where I agree.

rdos wrote:Hahaha. You must be yoking. Bill Gates wrote MSDOS in his garage, and the quality of the whole project was not professional, but the worst kind of hack you can imagine. Later code from MS does not make me think they have left the amateuer state yet.

Besides, you won't become a professional OS-developper just by signing-up with Microsoft. It takes talent.

And I'm sure there are professional programmers here. At least I'm a professional programmer with 25 years experience.

I never understood the hatred towards Microsoft among many software developers. Microsoft have problems and some products have been bad. However, I wouldn't call Microsoft kernel engineers incompetent. What I read about Windows and the kernel, there are solutions that I like. Windows OS is a huge project and requires a lot of resources and high level of organization. Microsoft handles this adequately and I've seen much worse cases. There must be a reason a vast majority chooses Windows instead Linux and it can't only be because of aggressive marketing.

<rant offtopic="true" ignore="on">

OSwhatever wrote:I never understood the hatred towards Microsoft among many software developers.

That implies you weren't interested in computers during the 80'ies and 90'ies, either due to lack of interest or lack of age.

Once upon a time, there was a real choice of operating systems. MacOS, AmigaOS, RiscOS, AtariTOS - the competition fueled quantum leaps in OS design, look & feel, functionality, and interoperability.

Until the technologically worst contender used business smarts, market leverage, and bully-boy tactics to stifle all competition, enjoyed the stranglehold it got on everyone, and brought advancements to a virtual standstill for the next decade.

OpenSource showed a way how this monopoly could be broken - until that path was monopolized by the GPL/Linux community in their own, special way. Well, at least their pressure made Microsoft move again, but as far as choice is concerned...

Well, we're stuck with "pay-per-view" Windows (with the "pay-per-view PREMIUM" bastard MacOS), and "wontfix" / "works-as-designed" Linux.

And that won't change anytime soon, if at all: You play proprietary, Microsoft will crush you with patent sues as soon as you show up on the radar. You play OpenSource, Linux will assimilate you.

Choice? Sure.

Some of us, who remember using stuff like Directory Opus fifteen years ago, simply realize how retarded the desktop operating system market is today, making you chose between WinNT plus eye candy and business model, and a 1970'ies Unix revival party.

This does make people angry from time to time.

</rant>