unite to make an OS

[kerravon]

We’ll have to agree to differ on this point.

But I’m afraid that it is childishly immature to refer to the licence you choose not to use as a “virus licence”. If I were still choosing software to use in business I would discard without a further thought anything produced by someone using such childish language.

You're apparently not my target market, as I consider your decision to judge software not on technical merit or restrictions imposed on your business, but political opinion, to be childish.

[ArsenArsen]

You're apparently not my target market, as I consider your decision to judge software not on technical merit or restrictions imposed on your business, but political opinion, to be childish.

Judging PDOS and sibling works on technical merits against GPL software also results in a preference for GPL software. The same goes for most or all other pieces of copyrighted work.

It is also quite ironic for you to say this, as you tend to judge licenses based on whether

Code: Select all

grep -i copyright license.txt

exits with zero or otherwise.

I seem to recall you applying this exact logic to ISC, MIT and similar permissive licenses. While I would not opt for them, they sit right in line with your stated mission goal, and have communities of thousands of developers willing to give up principles of Free software that you could share and integrate with, instead of choosing a path of hostility against everyone but a privately chosen arbitrary line in the sand, where relying on (copyrighted and broken) BIOS or UEFI implementations, or emulation layers is okay whereas integrating with actual Free software communities is not, because their COPYING/LICENSE file contains the word "copyright".

Personally, I'd trust someone who tells me "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." with not rug-pulling my rights to use their work far more than you or anyone who might get involved with your code, as I'd at least be given a well-formulated and well-known statement of rights.

On that note, I cannot trust your license opinions, seeing as you seem to fail to acknowledge the problem with that:

Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.

[iansjack]

We’ll have to agree to differ on this point.

But I’m afraid that it is childishly immature to refer to the licence you choose not to use as a “virus licence”. If I were still choosing software to use in business I would discard without a further thought anything produced by someone using such childish language.

You're apparently not my target market, as I consider your decision to judge software not on technical merit or restrictions imposed on your business, but political opinion, to be childish.

I’m certainly not your target market, so that’s both of us happy.

The decision not to make my business rely on someone whose judgement is immature is not a political decision; it’s a practical one. I can respect a choice to license software or to not license it, but I can’t respect the use of puerile insults against the choice you reject.

[kerravon]

You're apparently not my target market, as I consider your decision to judge software not on technical merit or restrictions imposed on your business, but political opinion, to be childish.

Judging PDOS and sibling works on technical merits against GPL software also results in a preference for GPL software.

I don't see a problem with that. The GPL software is indeed more technically advanced.

That's not my target market.

It is also quite ironic for you to say this, as you tend to judge licenses based on whether

Code: Select all

grep -i copyright license.txt

exits with zero or otherwise.

It's not ironic. While ever an author refuses to relinquish his rights, he's the undisputed copyright holder and can take me to court.

I seem to recall you applying this exact logic to ISC, MIT and similar permissive licenses. While I would not opt for them, they sit right in line with your stated mission goal

No, they don't.

where relying on (copyrighted and broken) BIOS or UEFI implementations, or emulation layers is okay

I didn't say it was or wasn't ok.

Personally, I'd trust someone

You're welcome to trust anyone you want. You're not my target audience.

On that note, I cannot trust your license opinions, seeing as you seem to fail to acknowledge

You apparently failed to bother to read the PDOS readme.txt which says you can use CC0 if you wish.

[arseniuss]

While ever an author refuses to relinquish his rights, he's the undisputed copyright holder and can take me to court.

This is funny. Who will tell him?

[Alexey1994]

I started with the processor circuit. You can see it here https://github.com/Alexey1994/simple-processor-circuit. Continued with a simple stackless operator language for the circuit. The ultimate goal is a ram machine in the form of a wristband with a display, keyboard and a bunch of gpio ports. I came to the conclusion that cpm like OS is the best for my homemade.

Well, who's with me?

[kerravon]

I started with the processor circuit. You can see it here https://github.com/Alexey1994/simple-processor-circuit. Continued with a simple stackless operator language for the circuit. The ultimate goal is a ram machine in the form of a wristband with a display, keyboard and a bunch of gpio ports. I came to the conclusion that cpm like OS is the best for my homemade.

Well, who's with me?

Your BelOS is not suitable? Why not?

[Alexey1994]

I started with the processor circuit. You can see it here https://github.com/Alexey1994/simple-processor-circuit. Continued with a simple stackless operator language for the circuit. The ultimate goal is a ram machine in the form of a wristband with a display, keyboard and a bunch of gpio ports. I came to the conclusion that cpm like OS is the best for my homemade.

Well, who's with me?

Your BelOS is not suitable? Why not?

BelOS is exactly what I want.

[kerravon]

I started with the processor circuit. You can see it here https://github.com/Alexey1994/simple-processor-circuit. Continued with a simple stackless operator language for the circuit. The ultimate goal is a ram machine in the form of a wristband with a display, keyboard and a bunch of gpio ports. I came to the conclusion that cpm like OS is the best for my homemade.

Well, who's with me?

Your BelOS is not suitable? Why not?

BelOS is exactly what I want.

So for what purpose do you need people with you?

[Alexey1994]

So for what purpose do you need people with you?

My benefit is that I will not feel alone when I create programs for my OS.

Other people can contribute to writing the OS they need. What's more, people don't have to wade through mountains of junk from commercial OSes to write their programs: they can use the best API I've crystallized.

I need to somehow convince people that I sketched a quality OS. I provided the code, then it's up to people.

[kerravon]

So for what purpose do you need people with you?

My benefit is that I will not feel alone when I create programs for my OS.

Other people can contribute to writing the OS they need. What's more, people don't have to wade through mountains of junk from commercial OSes to write their programs: they can use the best API I've crystallized.

I need to somehow convince people that I sketched a quality OS. I provided the code, then it's up to people.

Isn't all this hidden behind a C library?

Any C90-compliant program will thus compile.

I can e.g. provide C90-compliant "pdmake" so that you have a make program available.

And I can provide C90-compliant micro-emacs, but you will need to support ANSI X3.64 in addition to C90.

[Alexey1994]

Isn't all this hidden behind a C library?

Any C90-compliant program will thus compile.

I can e.g. provide C90-compliant "pdmake" so that you have a make program available.

And I can provide C90-compliant micro-emacs, but you will need to support ANSI X3.64 in addition to C90.

An API cannot be just a C library. In addition to some standard API, it should be possible to add your own. There is no chance for an ordinary person to add it to c90.

I studied the pdpclib code and I do not understand how, for example, to give the user an API for direct work with PCI or LPT directly from the kernel to the application.

For example, in COM from microsoft, you can register a custom component, and if not for the terrible uuid, this would be a great api.

Or does the user need to write the dll/so library as a kernel module?

My approach is simple: there is a global .h file for all applications of the entire api of the operating system, in which the user can add his own API, implement it in the kernel and recompile the kernel and applications.

[kerravon]

Isn't all this hidden behind a C library?

Any C90-compliant program will thus compile.

I can e.g. provide C90-compliant "pdmake" so that you have a make program available.

And I can provide C90-compliant micro-emacs, but you will need to support ANSI X3.64 in addition to C90.

An API cannot be just a C library.

Why not? I only needed to stray outside of C90 in order to run a few things like zip, to traverse a directory. And I just realized that I might be able to put that into fopen too. And to make a directory, I might be able to get fopen() to auto-create any directories too.

In addition to some standard API, it should be possible to add your own. There is no chance for an ordinary person to add it to c90.

If people want to write code specific to BelOS, that's fine. I'm just bringing C90 code to the table. Including massive C compilers etc.

I studied the pdpclib code and I do not understand how, for example, to give the user an API for direct work with PCI or LPT directly from the kernel to the application.

That's not C90, so not expected to be part of the C library.

For example, in COM from microsoft, you can register a custom component, and if not for the terrible uuid, this would be a great api.

Or does the user need to write the dll/so library as a kernel module?

That's a question for the OS, not the C library. So you have to answer it with BelOS. For PDOS you can call functions in kernel32.dll - there are some directory manipulation functions there - or you can call the Pos* functions which directly do a (32-bit) INT 21H.

My approach is simple: there is a global .h file for all applications of the entire api of the operating system, in which the user can add his own API, implement it in the kernel and recompile the kernel and applications.

I have a pos.h for the PDOS API (basically MSDOS with a C interface) and a windows.h for the Windows interface that PDOS supports.

[eekee]

I started with the processor circuit. You can see it here https://github.com/Alexey1994/simple-processor-circuit. Continued with a simple stackless operator language for the circuit. The ultimate goal is a ram machine in the form of a wristband with a display, keyboard and a bunch of gpio ports. I came to the conclusion that cpm like OS is the best for my homemade.

Well, who's with me?

Nice! BelOS looks well-developed on my cursory inspection. I might very well have a closer look after my Pocket Forth is up and running because I already have the hardware for that and the software work is little more than compiling Pforth with the target's C libraries. And writing an SD-card driver, but I'll probably simplify that. And writing a keyboard driver. And... You can see the problem: Most of us are too invested into our own projects to look at others, even if our projects are very simple. But I have been thinking what I really want is a userspace environment and I could port it to other peoples' OSs.

@Alexey1994, I'd like to ask questions about your OS and homemade projects, but this thread doesn't seem the right place. Perhaps you could make a thread in the Announcements forum?

So for what purpose do you need people with you?

My benefit is that I will not feel alone when I create programs for my OS.

Tell me about it! I often end up with no energy for coding because I've put so much into social things, sometimes including posting here.

[Alexey1994]

Tell me about it! I often end up with no energy for coding because I've put so much into social things, sometimes including posting here.

I have an idea how to unite several lone programmers. You need to port hundreds of interesting applications from different authors to your OS. Applications should be unique, little known, well-written, not be copies of their ancestors, work well, etc.

I also wonder if anyone has tried to do this: to connect a lot of single people, weak in terms of business, and get a qualitative and quantitative advantage over commerce. By analogy with the film "Free Reiner".

I did this at university: in one team project, I created a team of classmates with the lowest social rating. The result was bad - the ******* teacher disbanded the team. But for me, working in it was much more productive than working in a team of classmates with a high social rating.

Conclusion: you need to form a society of those who are much less socialized than you and become their leader.