OSDev.org

Hi! This is my second alpha release:

http://www.durlej.net/newsys

Except for the libgcc, no foreign code inside! Bug reports are welcome and should be submitted by visiting http://www.durlej.net/contact.

WARNING: gzip archive does not extract into separate folder.


That and I get a screen full of other archive-related warnings. Is this your first project ever?

Indeed, nice tarbomb.. it's annoying when people make this easily avoidable mistake.

Not sure about the archive warnings that Combuster experienced though, none show up using OpenBSD's pax/tar implementation..

I did noticed that the:

• Files permissions are chmod 600, directories 700.
• The dates are bogus, all unix epoch.
• A file link is present, which could potentially confuse some Windows extractors.

Beyond the initial problems, impressive. How long have have you been working on this?

Nice work

Combuster wrote:WARNING: gzip archive does not extract into separate folder.

Fixed, thanks.

Combuster wrote:That and I get a screen full of other archive-related warnings. Is this your first project ever?

Can't reproduce. What is your archiver software? What are the exact warning messages?

Brynet-Inc wrote:Indeed, nice tarbomb.. it's annoying when people make this easily avoidable mistake.

I am sorry about that. I hope none of your files were overwritten as a result of this deficiency of my release script.

Brynet-Inc wrote:none show up using OpenBSD's pax/tar implementation.

Hey, I am on OpenBSD too.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Files permissions are chmod 600, directories 700.

This is because I am running most programs with an umask(2) of 077. Is the mode of the files a real problem?

Brynet-Inc wrote:The dates are bogus, all unix epoch.

Intended. Basically, in the future I plan doing thinks like building the release with the file dates in the future (i.e. the planned release date), testing, and then releasing the previously built files.

Brynet-Inc wrote:A file link is present, which could potentially confuse some Windows extractors.

Won't fix. The link is correct and it reduces the size of the compressed tarball. Also, I consider hard links one of the things they couldn't get right in Windows NT but it does not mean we should't hard link files because of a single operating system failing to implement them in a sane way.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Beyond the initial problems, impressive. How long have have you been working on this?

Thank you. This consumed a lot of time, but the knowledge gained is simply priceless. As for the precise amount of time, it's hard to estimate, because I was working on this project in my spare time.

Can't reproduce. What is your archiver software? What are the exact warning messages?

Gentoo Linux tar+gzip. Basically it complained loudly about pretty much everything Brynet mentioned (except for the links).

And since my primary computer with a floppy drive is windows only, fixing links will save you the harassment of being an BSD evangelist like our resident troll Brynet-Inc. Like, if you want to get people off windows, make sure it installs from windows


Oh well, that shortage of professionalism tripped me into not risking actual hardware with undisclosed code. Might try next weekend if the stuff gets fixed.

acek wrote:I am sorry about that. I hope none of your files were overwritten as a result of this deficiency of my release script.

No harm done, I've taken to always listing archives before extracting them, others weren't so lucky.

acek wrote:Hey, I am on OpenBSD too.

I noticed this, I sent that link somewhere a few developers hang out, they thought that it was interesting, some of your command line programs appears inspired by OpenBSD equivalents, but are undoubtedly clean reimplementations.

P.S: You should resend your OpenBSD patches a few more times, it seems they went by unnoticed, at least one other person pointed this out when I linked to your site.

Brynet-Inc wrote:This is because I am running most programs with an umask(2) of 077. Is the mode of the files a real problem?

The problem is that when the permissions are 644/755 and your umask is 077, the permissions are changed to 600/700, but when your umask is the default of 022 the extracted files retain the reduced permissions.

Only a small nuisance, but for distribution tarballs it's best to have the uid/gid 0, and the permissions set as 644/755.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Won't fix. The link is correct and it reduces the size of the compressed tarball. Also, I consider hard links one of the things they couldn't get right in Windows NT but it does not mean we should't hard link files because of a single operating system failing to implement them in a sane way.

That's fine, I wouldn't fix it either. It might be an idea to simply provide the disk images individually gzip compressed but not inside a tar file, as a compromise.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Thank you. This consumed a lot of time, but the knowledge gained is simply priceless. As for the precise amount of time, it's hard to estimate, because I was working on this project in my spare time.

I wasn't looking for a precise estimate on how long you've put into it, mostly I was curious you first started working on it, the earliest copyright year I found was 2008. Does that should about right?

Combuster wrote:And since my primary computer with a floppy drive is windows only, fixing links will save you the harassment of being an BSD evangelist like our resident troll Brynet-Inc. Like, if you want to get people off windows, make sure it installs from windows

We are all obviously part of a secular daemon worshipping cult, there are no BSD evangelists.

Combuster wrote:Oh well, that shortage of professionalism tripped me into not risking actual hardware with undisclosed code. Might try next weekend if the stuff gets fixed.

I'm a professional fire truck, with lasers.

Brynet-Inc wrote:I'm a professional fire truck, with lasers.

Gotcha

berkus wrote:Can you please stop this bullshit? Thank you.

Not in a million years, its also called a troll face, get it right next time.

@OP: What about a "live CD" kind of thing where the OS doesn't try to install itself first thing?

Brynet-Inc wrote:The problem is that when the permissions are 644/755 and your umask is 077, the permissions are changed to 600/700, but when your umask is the default of 022 the extracted files retain the reduced permissions.

Only a small nuisance, but for distribution tarballs it's best to have the uid/gid 0, and the permissions set as 644/755.

I am aware of this. Actually, I have learned this the hard way a couple of years ago while trying to move parts of an installed OpenBSD to a new partition by not passing the tar(1) command the 'p' flag.

Brynet-Inc wrote:I wasn't looking for a precise estimate on how long you've put into it, mostly I was curious you first started working on it, the earliest copyright year I found was 2008. Does that should about right?

Well, in the year 2002 I have created a DOS clone, which was never released. However, the boot sector code was reused in a new project started in 2003, which was an Unix-like system.

Again, that OS was never released, but the C library and some command line utilities were reused in the current system, which was started in 2004.

The conclusion is that there may be some code of the year 2002 in the current system.

P.S. I have released a new alpha, which includes an UI upgrade. Download from http://www.durlej.net/newsys. The screenshots are at http://www.durlej.net/screens.