flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > i need an operating system

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
crunchbang is just a preconfigured version of Ubuntu. You can get the same results just using Ubuntu and setting it up the same way though crunchbang saves you the effort.
Post 17 Jul 2009, 12:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
but to use ubuntu instead of direct debian as base is a smart move.!!
crunchbang uses the minimal iso ubuntu to build, smart move also, maybe i should try using the mini ubuntu iso. maybe later.

but, this distro is so far, from what i can see, nice.
Post 17 Jul 2009, 14:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
TmX wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
Does booting from the Live CD via "syslinux" (with a kernel and a initial ramdisk) put the entire image in RAM?


afaik no
Good!
I don't want that as it would boot up in several minutes from a USB stick to load it all to RAM Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 18 Jul 2009, 17:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
been using crunchbang for sometime, especially when client pc corrupted and found virus (that still running), so i just crunchbang and after partition mounted, delete them. then restart their nice XP OS.

i change my laptop OS to xp, one problem is, the wireless signal in crunchbang is low, but on XP, the signal just nice and acceptable.

then now i thought of something.

why not an OS that has multiple OS inside.eg.
- os that handle characters.
- os that handle com / lpt port
- os that handle wifi / lan / ethernet / dial-up / tcpipv4 & v6
- os that handle files (ascii)
- os that handle binary files (break them based on type, movie, mp3, ...)
- os that handle memory (provide, recall, destroy)
- os that handle mouse
- os that handle graphic & resolution
- os timer/scheduler
- os that handle sound/audio

so, how they communicate.
how bout without any big brother watching them..

eg.
since memory is cheap nowadays.
so, they will be situated at exact memory address. (flat real mode).
if they wanna get data/write data, they will offset from that known address.

and everyone will get a chance let say, every 10 miliseconds, each OS can run something (sort of fake multitasking).

yeah, maybe i posted some rubbish, why somehow, this make me feel happy... i wonder why. hehehe.
Post 04 Aug 2009, 17:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Any multitasking OS already has that.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 04 Aug 2009, 18:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
sleepsleep wrote:
why not an OS that has multiple OS inside.eg.
- os that handle characters.
- os that handle com / lpt port
- os that handle wifi / lan / ethernet / dial-up / tcpipv4 & v6
- os that handle files (ascii)
- os that handle binary files (break them based on type, movie, mp3, ...)
- os that handle memory (provide, recall, destroy)
- os that handle mouse
- os that handle graphic & resolution
- os timer/scheduler
- os that handle sound/audio


This is, more or less, the idea of a Microkernel.

sleepsleep wrote:
and everyone will get a chance let say, every 10 miliseconds, each OS can run something (sort of fake multitasking).


Nothing fake about it. That's how preemptive multitasking works.

_________________
My x86 Instruction Reference -- includes SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 instructions.
Assembly Programmer's Journal
Post 05 Aug 2009, 03:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
mattst88 wrote:

sleepsleep wrote:
and everyone will get a chance let say, every 10 miliseconds, each OS can run something (sort of fake multitasking).


Nothing fake about it. That's how preemptive multitasking works.
It's fake in that there aren't actually multiple things running at the same time, since it works by stopping one of them and than starting another, tens (or even hundreds) of times per second..
Post 05 Aug 2009, 05:29
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
Azu wrote:
mattst88 wrote:

sleepsleep wrote:
and everyone will get a chance let say, every 10 miliseconds, each OS can run something (sort of fake multitasking).


Nothing fake about it. That's how preemptive multitasking works.
It's fake in that there aren't actually multiple things running at the same time, since it works by stopping one of them and than starting another, tens (or even hundreds) of times per second..


A single processor can't run multiple things at once.

It maybe an argument of semantics -- but I'm inclined to think that you need to read that article.

What you've said until now is that Windows NT, UNIX, Linux, Mac OS X, BSD, VMS, et al support fake multitasking.

_________________
My x86 Instruction Reference -- includes SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 instructions.
Assembly Programmer's Journal
Post 05 Aug 2009, 13:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
mattst88 wrote:
Azu wrote:
mattst88 wrote:

sleepsleep wrote:
and everyone will get a chance let say, every 10 miliseconds, each OS can run something (sort of fake multitasking).


Nothing fake about it. That's how preemptive multitasking works.
It's fake in that there aren't actually multiple things running at the same time, since it works by stopping one of them and than starting another, tens (or even hundreds) of times per second..


A single processor can't run multiple things at once.

It maybe an argument of semantics -- but I'm inclined to think that you need to read that article.

What you've said until now is that Windows NT, UNIX, Linux, Mac OS X, BSD, VMS, et al support fake multitasking.
I thought hyperthreading or multicore (or both) allow true multitasking on a single processor?
Post 05 Aug 2009, 13:23
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
forget bout the fake,
but could we write an OS eg. that uses 2 cores or quad core.
then eg.
i let 1 core to handle memory I/O + disk. (process)
another 1 to handle input (mouse, keyboard) + devices
another 1 core to handle output (printer, screen, graphic).

so, i choose what each core should do, or i cannot have something like this. or such idea just won't works?
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Why overcomplicate yourself? Just make them separate processes or threads and they will run on different cores. Why make them "multiple OSes" instead of just plain old "multiple processes/threads"?
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
sleepsleep wrote:
forget bout the fake,
but could we write an OS eg. that uses 2 cores or quad core.
then eg.
i let 1 core to handle memory I/O + disk. (process)
another 1 to handle input (mouse, keyboard) + devices
another 1 core to handle output (printer, screen, graphic).

so, i choose what each core should do, or i cannot have something like this. or such idea just won't works?
Most OSs already do support multicore and/or HT for true multitasking.

Borsuc wrote:
Why overcomplicate yourself? Just make them separate processes or threads and they will run on different cores. Why make them "multiple OSes" instead of just plain old "multiple processes/threads"?
He didn't say to make an OS for each core, he asked if we could make an OS that supports multicore.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:47
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I think he said this:
sleepsleep wrote:
why not an OS that has multiple OS inside.eg.
- os that handle characters.
- os that handle com / lpt port
- os that handle wifi / lan / ethernet / dial-up / tcpipv4 & v6
- os that handle files (ascii)
- os that handle binary files (break them based on type, movie, mp3, ...)
- os that handle memory (provide, recall, destroy)
- os that handle mouse
- os that handle graphic & resolution
- os timer/scheduler
- os that handle sound/audio
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Edit: Whoops. I thought you were replying to the post that you were quoting. I guess I should just assume that you aren't, since come to think of it, you almost never are, LOL.


Last edited by Azu on 05 Aug 2009, 15:12; edited 1 time in total
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:03
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

Why overcomplicate yourself? Just make them separate processes or threads and they will run on different cores. Why make them "multiple OSes" instead of just plain old "multiple processes/threads"?

i don't know if i have presented my idea correctly / clearly, sorry yeah.

but the idea is,
each OS (i call it OS instead of processes/threads) because.

each OS will write directly to an allocated memory space for them.

each OS will has its own memory management mechanism instead of a global memory manager that provide you memory space and recollect them when u r not using it.

if an OS needs to process something, it puts a values in a specific predefined address. eg. memory 0x00004000 with a value to jump.
so, the global scheduler will just jump through those predefined address values, see if it is zero or a value. if zero, it skips it, if not, it jumps to that address. after finish, it clears that address to zero and proceeds to another predefined address to check if it is zero or a jump.

i actually thought OOP language is kinda "fake" too, because in reality, inside our x86 architecture, everything is procedural. i mean, you got memory address from 0 to 400000000000000, then you just run from one point to another point, keep on jumping, and sometime, you use the stack and so on.

so, since the structure is procedural, so logically, procedural based language will suite the architecture better. imo and 2 cents.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
@Azu: Look at the quote I was thinking that he talked about (extending his ideas). Please use a search tool to find the phrase "multiple OS". Wink

EDIT: He replied with his idea of multiple OSes. Thing is, I am using english in context. Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
you both are correct,
it just my awful English confusing everybody ... sorry.

anyway, life goes on. so....
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
still finding something good for myself.
I tried the ideneb 10.5.6 lately.
Yeah,no wireless support,arghh,kinda show stopper.

but new gadgets are increasingly shifting from traditional gui approach,perhaps i should reborn and come in 2050 somehow.. But that would mean 2012 is hoax,hehehe.
Post 25 Sep 2009, 23:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
The thing is, devices should have a standardized interface, and a special "BIOS" that should handle it all (and be called by the disk OS). Period. Then all OSes that can talk to that BIOS would be able to use it. Freaking the driver problem is solved.

Sort of an extension to the current BIOS.
Post 26 Sep 2009, 18:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc: That doesn't work because there are millions (literally) of devices out there. No BIOS could ever hope to support all of them, it would be madness (and impossible).
Post 26 Sep 2009, 18:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.