OSDev.org

01000101 wrote:but, only if it's a compliment... It's TroyMartin's if it's being bashed.

Hey!

Guess who just insulted my work in #tbos? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "in" and ends with "flater".

Respectfully, I would like to add that your copy and paste job is not really that impressive. From what I can tell, your "work" is bootleg and what's worse is that it is entirely made up of the worst of what is around; abandoned code. Aren't you at least concerned that the code you are using is mostly incomplete and not your own? Anyone can paint by numbers, I guess I just don't understand the thrill you get from copying and pasting. If I am wrong, perhaps you might elaborate more which parts you actually wrote yourself. I'd also be interested in hearing more about what you have actually learned in the process. Thanks

I have learned to ignore people who don't believe the words of those who say "I haven't copied and pasted much here" and "I am working on the rest of everything from scratch." Okay, let's look at this count of source code files:

• boot.s - JamesM, partly mine
• main.c - mine (rewritten JamesM)
• common.c - JamesM
• monitor.c - JamesM
• interrupt.c - mine, bit of JamesM, bit of PD code
• isr.s - mine
• keyboard.c - mine
• ramdisk.c - mine
• floppy.c - mine
• printf.c - mine
• shell.c - mine

That's a total of 3.5 out of 11 source files that are not my work. Get the facts straight before saying "most of the code is copied and pasted."

That's all.

EDIT: Hey, wait, that's just what gets the OS off of relying GRUB and starts a freestanding environment (albeit a simple one that doesn't do much.) Kinda funny, I'm being insulted before I even have an alpha RC out.

besides, I would bet that 9/10 people here have at least a few large sections that are copied from either Bran's, JamesM's, or the wiki in general.

There are only so many ways to handle an interrupt or reprogram the PIC or set up page tables so there's always going to be some code duplication. If it works why try to redo it in a possibly error prone way?

01000101 wrote:besides, I would bet that 9/10 people here have at least a few large sections that are copied from either Bran's, JamesM's, or the wiki in general.

*raises hand*

My kernel's entry module is almost exactly what's in the barebones, same with my linker script. GDT code is modelled on Bran's tutorial (though I've been meaning to rewrite it for years now). I figure if it's there, it's available, and it's working, why not use it? That's what code re-use is all about. The only problem comes when you don't acknowledge those sources.

01000101 wrote:besides, I would bet that 9/10 people here have at least a few large sections that are copied from either Bran's, JamesM's, or the wiki in general.

I sure hope not There is no need for it.

neon wrote:

01000101 wrote:besides, I would bet that 9/10 people here have at least a few large sections that are copied from either Bran's, JamesM's, or the wiki in general.

I sure hope not There is no need for it.

no need for it?
There's no need for writing an OS yet we are still here (who wants to write an OS so that they can use their computer better? most of us just enjoy it, even though it's a pointless hobby like a scrapbook)

Like I've said before, arguing over this stuff is pointless. 'ZOMG U STOLZ MAI CODEZ' Well hmm, there's roughly, just about, on average, conceptually ONE OVERALL WAY to modify a CPU to change to real/unreal/protected/long mode. It's been written before and it's going to be re-fucking-written on EVERY SINGLE x86 OPERATING SYSTEM.

You can change the spots but it's still a leopard.

You can however, come up with better abstractions and designs for the following operating system. Now stop fucking bickering and go get some coding done.

If you cannot agree that leeching is a shameful act, then this whole conversation is pointless. And, if you write even one line of code without a purpose, then you might as well be scrap booking.

JackScott wrote:

01000101 wrote:besides, I would bet that 9/10 people here have at least a few large sections that are copied from either Bran's, JamesM's, or the wiki in general.

*raises hand*

My kernel's entry module is almost exactly what's in the barebones, same with my linker script. GDT code is modelled on Bran's tutorial (though I've been meaning to rewrite it for years now). I figure if it's there, it's available, and it's working, why not use it? That's what code re-use is all about. The only problem comes when you don't acknowledge those sources.

*Raises hand as well*

I've taken most of the code from JamesM and Bran's, implemented it in my old OS and then learned from it. In my new OS, I'm still using the same code but heavily modfied. I now primarily use the tutorials as guidelines more than as just writing my own version of the same code. Eventually it gives me my own version of every part of the OS, but it's still inspired by the tutorials.

earlz wrote:no need for it?
There's no need for writing an OS yet we are still here (who wants to write an OS so that they can use their computer better? most of us just enjoy it, even though it's a pointless hobby like a scrapbook)

I suppose for a hobby OS it does not really matter. Although I still stand by my original post. Taking code does not gain anything.

This whole thread is getting out of hand and turning in to a flame fest.
Locked.