Another ASM written OS

[Hawkuletz]

Can be found here
It's *very* small, quite simple to develop for, is fast and is completely written in ASM.
I myself written a small app for it myself.. It took me a few hours.
On the top of the page, meaning Hostile Encounter you can find a game written completely in ASM as well. Unfortunatelly for w$nd$ws, but I think some of you will still be able to try it.
Both these projects should prove to you that ASM programming is still of use.
Waiting for your comments,
Hawk.

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkuletz ]

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkuletz ]

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkuletz ]

[psyjax]

I guess this means we are all SOL.

HAHAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!

no no wait....

Marketing the OS will see you SOL!

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Porting the OS leaves programmers SOL!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA rOFL!!!!!

[Hawkuletz]

Hmm! That SOL stands for the name of the company supporting the system, that is Solar Software. From what I've seen arount this forum you're pretty good at making fun of others.. Are you as good at making programs? Or operating systems? One person said around here that a 'decent' (I wonder, what would decent mean to him?) loader would took several months to accomplish. Yeah, right, if you need to learn programming first, perhaps it would take months. Or worse. But if you have some knowledge about the way computers really work it's not that hard, nor that time consuming.
You're no less than the guy who got the idea of writing an OS. He started with the name. And some weird and strange impressions of what it should contain. But you can't see more than him since instead of looking at the source code of the program, or at least try it to see how it works you're just making fun of a name.
Another point: MENUET is listed on this site. It is another OS completely written in ASM. What more could you ask for? I just wanted to prove the fact that it is POSSIBLE and NOT THAT HARD to write a complete OS in ASM. Try MENUET if SOL OS is too funny a name to even consider runing it then tell me what you think about ASM OS programming.

[Pantso]

Hey Hawkuletz, don't get psyjax wrong. I don't believe that he was making fun of you or the outcome of your effort. I'm sure that you have invested a respectable amount of time and effort to this project.    

I'm not a programmer or a software engineer and above all I don't know how to program in ASM. I appreciate your effort however.  

[rtgwbmsr]

Mmmmmmmm...if we could get games on that thing...it would be awesome! Port Quake I or something...the fastest quake in the world...

[TheQuirk]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkuletz:
One person said around here that a 'decent' (I wonder, what would decent mean to him?) loader would took several months to accomplish.

And he was correct. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. A bunch of hacks is not a boot loader in my book.

[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: TheQuirk ]

[psyjax]

I program in C and knoe some 68k ASM. Never touched the stuff after Apple swithced to PPC. Just never suited my needs, especially since the grafix blitter I use is already written in pure ASM and very well optimized to PPC code.

I don't program on x86's. Dabled in it a bit, but couldent get far cuz I left my PC at home while at school. I was laughing at the name, Shit Out of Luck is often abreviated as SOL. And while I am sure it is fast and compact, the same ASM restrictions aply, it will only run on x86 unless a compleat re-write for other platforms is done, which is at best impractical if not impossible. So no, it isn't portable, and programs written for the OS would also be hard to port.

Also, I didn't read far enugh, but what chipset does the OS run on? Because if those ever change I supose you will be... oh go... SOL    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!

sorry, had to say it.

Nah, no hard feelings, I just thought it was a funny name.

[Hawkuletz]

The Muffin Man said:
 

quote: if we could get games on that thing...it would be awesome

He he... in the end there will be Hostile Encounter, at least. Perhaps some 3d as well..  
TheQuirk also stated that:
 

quote: A bunch of hacks is not a boot loader in my book

Than what's the definition of a boot loader in that book of yours? Remember how LILO started?
I've seen many new OS projects... most of them using some already made boot loader from the start. I mean.. "I wanna make a new OS so I'm gonna copy a bit from there and another one from here and ready I am. Like the GRUB boot-loader, and portions of the Linux kernel and so on." If you really want to make something then go ahead and create! Everything starts as a  

quote: bunch of hacks

but then might evolve.
Oh, and I almost forgot: No, I can't see that you're the most furious man in Taiwan...  :rolleyes:
Last but not least, psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax
 

quote: it will only run on x86 unless a compleat re-write for other platforms is done

Hmm.... Does MacOSX run on anything BUT Macs? And anyways, since we only had x86s lying around... who cares? We don't aim at conquering the world with this OS. (like that other guy here    )
The purpose of this project is for us to get a better understanding of how things really work. Most programming languages are designed to hide the true and harsh realities of computing from even the programmer, let alone the poor luser. So... what really lies inside?
And besides while we are all saying that Microsoft is bad, that windoze sucks (if it at least would do that right!) and so on, how many of us really tried to do an OS themselves and then talk about others?
I personally like linux (and BSD, somehow) more than Windows, but I am very upset that even there the same thing happens. Imagine many people are writing in INTERPRETORS (see PHP and PERL) and they are complaining about the slow speed of the programs and so on. Why do we have gigahertz processors? To stop optimizing our software, or even more, fill our computers with bloatware. Just think about KDE. How many magabytes of RAM does it require to work properly in, say, SuSE 8.0?
Well... I got me started and I know some of my points come in total disagree with your way of thinking...

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkuletz:
The Muffin Man said:
 
Hmm.... Does MacOSX run on anything BUT Macs? And anyways, since we only had x86s lying around... who cares? We don't aim at conquering the world with this OS. (like that other guy here     )
The purpose of this project is for us to get a better understanding of how things really work. Most programming languages are designed to hide the true and harsh realities of computing from even the programmer, let alone the poor luser. So... what really lies inside?
And besides while we are all saying that Microsoft is bad, that windoze sucks (if it at least would do that right!) and so on, how many of us really tried to do an OS themselves and then talk about others?
I personally like linux (and BSD, somehow) more than Windows, but I am very upset that even there the same thing happens. Imagine many people are writing in INTERPRETORS (see PHP and PERL) and they are complaining about the slow speed of the programs and so on. Why do we have gigahertz processors? To stop optimizing our software, or even more, fill our computers with bloatware. Just think about KDE. How many magabytes of RAM does it require to work properly in, say, SuSE 8.0?
Well... I got me started and I know some of my points come in total disagree with your way of thinking...

Oh I agree totally, I hate the way modern software is so bloated and sloppy. If more companies, invested time to code vital components in ASM, everything would be smaller, faster, and more efficient. I hate the attitude taken by many developers that the hardware will pick up the slack.

I was not knocking the OS, it may be very cool, I dunno. I was simply saying that an OS compleatly written in ASM is very impractical from a mass market stand-point. It's a great hobby project to learn advanced computer programmin and such, but not as an OS for widespread use.

Is PERL only interpreted? I think there is indeed a compiler for it.... maybe not.

[Hawkuletz]

Just one more thing, please:
An open source operating system, being written in asm does not stop one from writing a (say) C/C++/other compiler for it (should one need sucha thing). I personally program in win32 asm, meaning I write windows programs in ASM. I find it easier than using their vc++ or anything like it. Most of this b/c of the assembler and the possibility to call system APIs or functions, I agree that in the early days ASM programming when one was expected to know all the register parameters of the interrupt services (since all BIOS and OS functions were called that way) was a lot harder. But things have evolved since, and ASM is just a bridge between HLLs and the REAL MACHINE    
Anyways, there are people who would love having transparent windows, buttons and menus in a program just under 100kb of SIZE (loader included    ) and make an embeded application on it or perhaps write more software for it until it will eventually grow into a complete OS  

[choasforages]

the underlying core of osx is highly portable.

that aside, depending on the skill of the programer, asm can be insanly fast./*most likely the programer is already insane, but hey, raw logic ability has its prices, well worth them.....*/

hell, i barely know C++./*never had time to sit down and master it*/

[KernelPanic]

I think writing a complete multi-function, multi-tasking, networking OS in ASM is a very bad idea. ASM is very good for a small OS like SOL or an embedded OS where hardware is not likely to change or a BIOS or boot loader.
But as the program evolves ASM becomes difficult to maintain, loses its speed edge, has awful portablity and will be crippled by any fundemental hardware change.
The stage to which C/C++ compilers has evolved these days means that you can get some very fast compiled code.
Obviously not as fast as ASM but well written C code compiled on a decent compiler can be shit hot.
The point at the end of the day is that in different scenarios the merits of using ASM, C or C++ or whatever tickles your fancy need to be looked at. The best option for a very functional kernel/application tends to be a srategic combination of all three.

Anyway guys, don't start a programming language flame war, because there are different languages for a reason - to be used for different things. Also, it's just wearing.

[ravuya]

Not trying to start a flame war here, but I'd never write an OS in ASM... Apple did that with their first few versions of Mac OS, and when they moved to a different processor line, large sections of the OS ended up being emulated and really killed the speed.

Now almost the entire thing is done in a C derirative.

It is pretty cool that you wrote an OS in ASM, however. Probably make a really neat operating system for a portable machine with little or no memory (i.e. Gameboy or something).

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkuletz:
Just one more thing, please:
An open source operating system, being written in asm does not stop one from writing a (say) C/C++/other compiler for it (should one need sucha thing). I personally program in win32 asm, meaning I write windows programs in ASM. I find it easier than using their vc++ or anything like it. Most of this b/c of the assembler and the possibility to call system APIs or functions, I agree that in the early days ASM programming when one was expected to know all the register parameters of the interrupt services (since all BIOS and OS functions were called that way) was a lot harder. But things have evolved since, and ASM is just a bridge between HLLs and the REAL MACHINE            
Anyways, there are people who would love having transparent windows, buttons and menus in a program just under 100kb of SIZE (loader included            ) and make an embeded application on it or perhaps write more software for it until it will eventually grow into a complete OS          

how portable is this OS?

one other thing, please do not treat this forum as a war. your second post really made this thread look like an argument very early on. many people here are doubtless interested in this sort of thing (especially if it is open source) but they will not stay interested if the discussion always falls to the level of petty bickering (and that goes for the rest of you too!         )

edit:
you know what? this looks like a nice OS if it could have any apps!
it's miniscule, it actually has a GUI at that size, i don't see anything wrong with it. the licence is more or less a cross between the GPL and the public domain licences of BSD and Minix, the only thing it needs now is apps.

Do you think this OS would be something i could learn something from? also where would i get some programs to run on this OS? also, do these programs need to be written for this OS, or can they be any ASM programs?
I am actually quite interested in this little project.
edit: i didn't realise it could run under vmware, i hope this project gets a bit of momentum since i would like to see it get hard drive support et cetera. still, i am concerned that if it gets big, it might get really crufty and hard to keep internally tidy, no?
also, what can this damn thing do? i can't find out how to do anything other than open empty windows! does it have utilities? an ability to load things off the floppy et c? does it even have a filesystem? can it access dos formatted floppies? et cetera...

[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: hopelessly outnumbered ]

[Doogee]

Try writing an OS in binary, so easy to understand.