OSDev.org

I browsed thru all the osdev 200 or so os projects list here
http://wiki.osdev.org/Projects

I am wondering a few things from the projects and project osdev page

This page maintains a list of academic, personal, and small non-commercial operating systems

and

For information regarding commercial or main-stream operating systems visit Wikipedia.

Was curious if there is more non-mainstream/non-commerical OS or if these 200 or so list are the only known ones.
Or if there are other non-mainstream/non-commerical projects that osdev doesn't know about or are hosted somewhere else.

Question 2
Is I am curious what constitutes the difference in an os being non-mainstream/non-commerical or mainstream/commerical is there some defining factor. Or is it just by personal judgement of how developed an OS or weather they want to make it commerical....? I see reactos is in this list though it is more of a mainstream focus / well developed in my book (same with plan9 , MenuetOS ,..etc). I would say since most of the 200 or so OS listed are simple toy os's (i.e about 10 or so of them are truely developed to the point of being a little bit more then just poping a message or simple things. And most of those 10 have had multiple people working on them)

But I have to say reactos, haukiu, plan9 , MenuetOS ,...the top 10 etc are "pretty" impressive for a few developers.

Question 3
I know linux and alot of now major commerical os's started out as simple non-mainstream os's.
But I am wondering why osdev doesn't keep a list of all the old versions of mainstream os's like linux,...etc before they became mainstream?

Question 4
Is the closed source old commerical os's like MSDOS , windows 3.0 , windows 95 before nt os's,...etc still closed source or did microsoft ever release there code sort of like apple did with there variations of the system 7 os they customized to make some of there old apple os's?

once you have the theory of the design and theory of how the os fully works/what you can do. The code writes itself nothing hard about typing with a little practices and a clear path

In that since os development is just an extension of application development with more rules and theory to understand. I would like to say os development is the big picture of application development it gives you the full picture of how everything works and complete control over a system. But at first might seem like new news but one finds in the end it is not much different then application programming except you understand more but can see less with out more effort

Yo:

Sam111 wrote:...
Was curious if there is more non-mainstream/non-commerical OS or if these 200 or so list are the only known ones.
Or if there are other non-mainstream/non-commerical projects that osdev doesn't know about or are hosted somewhere else.

I'm sure there are people who haven't added their projects to that list, and I'm sure they number quite highly as well -- a simple search on Github should prove fruitful.

Sam111 wrote:Question 2
Is I am curious what constitutes the difference in an os being non-mainstream/non-commerical or mainstream/commerical is there some defining factor.

I'd say that from the time your kernel (1) has passed being a "hobby" project and is usable in a practical environment, even if only for a limited set of functions, and (2) is considered serious/useful work by a respectable number of people, it is then a mainstream project. How strongly it picks up momentum and receives the benefit of the bandwagon effect is another matter

Sam111 wrote:Question 3
I know linux and alot of now major commerical os's started out as simple non-mainstream os's.
But I am wondering why osdev doesn't keep a list of all the old versions of mainstream os's like linux,...etc before they became mainstream?

Beyond a fondness for things related to the field, I have no reason for keeping my copy of Linus's first release of Linux -- it is admittedly very bad, no offense ("This is very good code!" ), and is of no academic value. It does hold historical significance though and is a nice thing to have. If you are interested in compiling such an archive for old versions of mainstream kernels, PM chase with your idea :O

--Peace out
gravaera

ok, thanks for the reply

But I am also wondering about question4 in my previous post.

and below

Question 5
I know there is probably 1000's of different toy os's floating around out there on git hub , google code ,...etc
But of the non-comerical/non-mainstream how many of them are respectably developed to a level like
reactos, haukiu, plan9 , MenuetOS , the other top 10er that osdev has? I know obviously comerical/mainstream ones are a different story but
I have only found a handful of non-comerical/non-mainstream os's that are respectable interms of features,functionality ,abilities, code complexity ,...etc

Am I wrong in saying that there is only probably a handful of the 1000's of the non-comerical/non-mainstream out there with respectable complexity/quality/features/,..etc like reactos, haukiu, plan9 , MenuetOS ...
Or would I be way off?

Sam111 wrote:Question 4
Is the closed source old commerical os's like MSDOS , windows 3.0 , windows 95 before nt os's,...etc still closed source or did microsoft ever release there code sort of like apple did with there variations of the system 7 os they customized to make some of there old apple os's?

MSDOS 6.0 source code is just one google away. Not legal, but still. There's plenty of old stuff out there, I have also found the turbo pascal 6.0 compiler source...

yup, its out there

But my most important question is number 5
???

Yes , it does

But how did linux get so developed it was once just an osdev toy like project
Or another words a variation of minx toy.

What got tons of people started developing it?

Or what got people into working to develop it so much over the other toy OS at the time.

it was first. being successful at anything really, depends on that - or radical change. and by first, i mean the first usable kernel suitable to run all the gnu programs on top of, since the gnu kernel even to this day isn't finished.

understand that but wasn't minux and unix based os's around.

so how did linux os get so popular or attract so many people and why doesn't the same thing
happen to the osdev toy os's in a similar manner

unless of course Linus had a good marketing skill to appeal to the developers or something.

Question 2
Is how much of the linux kernel did Linus Torvalds code/create by todays standards
and approximately how many people are working on the linux kernel (interms of whos code counts / committers license to the repo ,..etc )

Also was kind of curious about how much code Bill Gates did on the microsoft OS / MSDOS OS. Or is he not as technical and just a good business man/ marketer

1. first hit on google
2a. first hit on google
2b. first hit on google

I don't see how you say that as if you could type into google tell me
how much code Linus wrote or Bill gates wrote

Or why linux became popular or stood out from other toy os's
Or why the toy os's on osdev or github ,..etc are not likely to be the next linux
machine.

I actually did type it into google just to prove how bad at this you really are. Worst of it all is that two of the queries point directly to wikipedia.

In other words:

Sam111 wrote:Or why linux became popular or stood out from other toy os's

Linux was a kernel for an already-existing, rich userspace, with a vocal and active community behind it (GNU). When Linux appeared, tools like GCC, vim, grep, sed, flex, bison, mail, ssh etc. etc. yadda yadda were already there. Linux enabled people to use that userspace on their Intel PCs, for free.

Any other OS is either 1) a poor second to Linux when it comes to running the GNU userspace, or 2) doesn't have a comparable userspace.

Add a strong pro-GPL bias of the hobbyist community at large, and it's easy to see why "other toy OS's" don't really get the same kind of support as Linux does. Good things are assimilated, the rest is left behind.

Solar wrote:Any other OS is either 1) a poor second to Linux when it comes to running the GNU userspace, or 2) doesn't have a comparable userspace.

That statement is just a little too sweeping (or else demonstrates a poor understanding - take your pick). The many people using FreeBSD and the other free BSDs would disagree with both of your points. I suspect that Solaris users would also take issue with you.

The world does not belong to Linux (thank goodness).

(Also, many of us prefer the FreeBSD licence to GPL.)

Combuster, if you find his questions unworthy of your precious time and energy(?) then I suggest you leave it alone. Comments like that is just wrong and unnecessary.

I'm more concerned about all the posts made times all the people that will be reading them. Now that's a grand waste of economic resources.

If I were still a mod I'd have enforced his 4th (yes!) ban, and made sure it was permanent. I get ticked off by people like you for the odd insult every 100 post, whereas he violates a rule or more on 75% of his posts and still gets away with it.