OSDev.org

Oh yeah I know it took some time, but finally I got to the user mode

So to switch apps I have to save/restore state and load new CR3? Is this correct and enough?

Downloaded the OS image, what stage is it in? I was only able to make a selection rectangle, no start menu and recycle bin.

At least boot times are very fast!

iProgramInCpp wrote:Downloaded the OS image, what stage is it in? I was only able to make a selection rectangle, no start menu and recycle bin.

At least boot times are very fast!

As you see, I'm implementing apps support. Exactly the part which makes OS fun to use

I will add more stuff after that.

P.S. How do you test? In VirtualBox or hardware?

Your website and GitHub README contain Windows screenshots that you market as "Greentea OS". No, your OS cannot run Overwatch, Firefox, Telegram and Skyrim.

That's at dishonest and deceptive. At the current state, your OS is not even able to render these screenshots as static PNGs. Since you also ask for funding, it might as well be fraud (IANAL).

Who are you trying to deceive here?

Korona wrote:Your website and GitHub README contain Windows screenshots that you market as "Greentea OS". No, your OS cannot run Overwatch, Firefox, Telegram and Skyrim.

That's at dishonest and deceptive. At the current state, your OS is not even able to render these screenshots as static PNGs. Since you also ask for funding, it might as well be fraud (IANAL).

Who are you trying to deceive here?

I'm just making OS to run .exe apps, I have to show all those screenshots to show clearly that's it is not a Linux distro nor Unix.

I do understand what you are trying to say, but this is what you have to do to attract people. This way I built small community which is completely fine with that. They help to move this project forward and don't give up. Asking for funding is a norm nowadays.

No, this way you get the reputation of a scammer.

I thought something was odd, but I was too tired to look into it. I'm not comfortable with a lot of present-day norms, they are about pushing the line as close to scamming as you can possibly get away with.

asking for funding is ok, showing fake screenshots isn't. I also wanna make Windows like OS, not for stupid "replacement" or whatever idiocy, just because I like Windows. and it intrigues me to think about creating something similar, in the spirit, yet running on some weirdos like MIPS/ARM SBCs. but. if I don't have something to show, I am not showing anything, no matter how I want to build a community around it. why? because it's rather obvious and Korona outlined it clear - making up things, you'll get the only "achievement" - a smelly reputation. and it pushes away of your project, rather than what you believe.

I have made a NT clone in the past. This is not how you do it.

You have started putting blurring and graphics effects directly into the kernel before you even have an object manager or driver stack. You should familiarize yourself with how NT does drivers, devices, objects, and handles before you start implementing things too quickly. Your code is completely disorganized and bloated. The "interrupts.c" file is over 500 lines alone. Your coding style is not compatible with NT. For example you do setPixel instead of SetPixel. You mix C++ and C like crazy. You have a Math class and a acpi namespace but a RamDiskAsset struct. You define macros like function, let, and u8. You have a 16KB buffer in your code for no reason. Your bump allocator is somehow both broken and bloated (the free function doesn't work like that). You called your OS "Monolithic performance-oriented kernel." It is IMPOSSIBLE to implement an NT clone and have it be monolithic. NT is a highly modular hybrid kernel and was built that way. You want "Isolation and containerization of everything." You just said you wanted it to be a monolithic kernel and from your source code, a very unmodular kernel, even putting blur effects in the equivalent of NTOSKRNL.EXE. Much of your kernel looks stolen as well (inconsistent spacing, inconsistent formatting, inconsistent commenting). Your code is extremely disorganized. You will end up refactoring or canceling this project because of how disorganized it is. Please read how NT works, how PE works, and how OSDev works before you end up having to rewrite your entire kernel.

I pretty much agree with everything Carver has said above.
Trust me, I've been in a similar situation before. I designed the user I'minterface in GIMP before I even wrote the first line of code in real mode. I imagined how cool the result would be. I thought about how the system would be constructed, etc. And that's actually a good thing to do - to plan your project beforehand.
What's not good is trying to show the concepts and say that that's how good your OS looks. What's not good is having a user interface in your kernel (and yeah, I was a jerk too when I did the same thing five months ago and yes, I do regret it). What's not good is not following the very first page of the Wiki a beginner OS developer must read first (aka Beginner Mistakes). No point in making bold claims about the future of your project on your website if you don't actually have a lot to show.
I'm conclusion, I think you should reconsider your plans for the future. Maybe a huge refactoring of the whole project even at this stage will help a lot. I really do believe your project will become at least somewhat successful at least in the OSDev community, but only if you put proper effort into it.

portasynthinca3 wrote:I pretty much agree with everything Carver has said above.
Trust me, I've been in a similar situation before. I designed the user I'minterface in GIMP before I even wrote the first line of code in real mode. I imagined how cool the result would be. I thought about how the system would be constructed, etc. And that's actually a good thing to do - to plan your project beforehand.
What's not good is trying to show the concepts and say that that's how good your OS looks. What's not good is having a user interface in your kernel (and yeah, I was a jerk too when I did the same thing five months ago and yes, I do regret it). What's not good is not following the very first page of the Wiki a beginner OS developer must read first (aka Beginner Mistakes). No point in making bold claims about the future of your project on your website if you don't actually have a lot to show.
I'm conclusion, I think you should reconsider your plans for the future. Maybe a huge refactoring of the whole project even at this stage will help a lot. I really do believe your project will become at least somewhat successful at least in the OSDev community, but only if you put proper effort into it.

Same but my first OS was even worse. I included the entirety of GMP into my kernel. It was coop multitasking with no memory protection. All programs were run in the slowest scheme interpreter ever made, tinyscheme. Code was stolen from all over the place. The string.c and math.c were 1000 lines each.

PeyTy wrote:

iProgramInCpp wrote:Downloaded the OS image, what stage is it in? I was only able to make a selection rectangle, no start menu and recycle bin.

At least boot times are very fast!

As you see, I'm implementing apps support. Exactly the part which makes OS fun to use

I will add more stuff after that.

P.S. How do you test? In VirtualBox or hardware?

VirtualBox, but I could also try it in VMware

PeyTy wrote: I'm just making OS to run .exe apps, I have to show all those screenshots to show clearly that's it is not a Linux distro nor Unix.

It might be more honest if you were to add an annotation to the screenshots explaining that they do not represent your OS but some ideal that you hope to attain.

iansjack wrote:It might be more honest if you were to add an annotation to the screenshots explaining that they do not represent your OS but some ideal that you hope to attain.

I agree. The issue hasn't turned me off the project, just made me a little uncomfortable.

Here's hoping the cleanup isn't too much of a drag too!

Hey all. Thanks for the feedback. I don't like the amount of drama, but nonetheless have incorporated some proposals.

iProgramInCpp wrote:VirtualBox, but I could also try it in VMware

I'm more interested in how it behaves on the hardware. I have rare graphics bug, if you don't mind to test and post a photo here.

I made some tests on VMWare and Hyper-V some time ago, and expect no changes there.