While I like the idea of starting a hobby OS, but the most despairing thing about it that to be useful it would always have to implement 'legacy' interfaces of other OSes. That is, it cannot stand on its own and create a new ecosystem, instead it has to interface to the world and implement TCP, POSIX, know formats widely used files and such.
You end up with an OS kernel that talks Linux/Win32 and takes on a lot of compat code, protocols, and other paradigms.
I wonder what a hobby OS would have looked like it if it assumed nothing, that is, as a thought experiment, as if aliens on another planet invented computing and started writing OSes from scratch. Imagine we discover software from another planet that would not even work with 8-bit bytes, for instance.
> I wonder what a hobby OS would have looked like it if it assumed nothing
There's lots of stuff that was around in the 1960s that became dead-ends because everybody piled in on another way of doing something, and then things got optimised for that way, then every other way was less performant, and soon the lucky one way became the only way.
I've never really had much time to explore these early ideas from well before I was born whilst working, but definitely think it'd be a fun way to spend my time when I eventually retire - to try to recreate some of the stuff from that era that got forgotten and see what it could be developed into nowadays.
For example, just watch Douglas Engelbart's 1968 demo [1] for some ideas - some of the things presented in that took decades before it was rediscovered and implemented on systems available outside of research environments.
You probably do want to speak IP, but if you want to do all the work, you don't need to use BSD sockets.
POSIX and other such things will let you use more of other people's software... but that's a choice.
You can also do a lot of reuse if you just want to focus on some parts. There's no need to write a bootloader unless you want to. You can pull in lwIP for the IP stack. You can do a lot of interesting (I think) things with barely any userland if you want.
If it's supposed to be a general purpose OS, you end up looking a lot like existing general purpose OSes though, cause it's hard to build everything and the closer you get to existing OSes, the more existing software you can leverage.
If you only want to run a subset of existing software, you might not need to cover that many of the syscalls from whatever OS it was targetted at. My hobby OS runs one specific FreeBSD executable, and it doesn't take that many syscalls to do it.
> Imagine we discover software from another planet that would not even work with 8-bit bytes, for instance.
8-bit bytes didn't become fully dominant until maybe the 1970s. It's a bit hard to find software older than that, but it's around somewhere.
If you have a goal of making your OS usable, you have to design it with this in mind. Build your kernel and driver subsystem in a way that legacy OS interfaces can be implemented on top of them. Find ways to repurpose existing infrastructure so you don't have to do all the work yourself.
For a hobby OS .. nobody is stopping you. I have my own hobby OS where everything is custom, I don't even have a standard C library, I made my own, I don't copy posix conventions, everything is just implemented as to what makes sense to me. I never understood the people that go through all the effort to work on their own OS, and all their work is to just create a linux/windows clone from scratch. Of course even accomplishing that is a huge achievement, but if you're going through all the effort, why not do something different?
I’d love to see a new operating system that explores radically different APIs for applications. The trouble is writing an operating system is a large effort. Barring market effects, OS has to be heads-and-shoulders better than existing ones in order to convince application developers to write software for it. Windows, macOS, and Linux are good enough for most people, even techies. Additionally, it is often easier to modify an existing operating system such as Linux than to go through the trouble of writing a brand new operating system.
Impressive! I like the goal of making a hobby OS viable as a daily driver.
I've been working on my own hobby OS for half a decade. It does a lot less, but it has helped me realize that we can remove much of the complexity of a generic mainstream OS while still meeting our personal computing needs. I know I'm just poorly reinventing something between DOS and Unix/Plan 9 in an extremely limited fashion, but it's absolutely perfect for experimentation!
Honestly the most interesting thing to me would be how they got GPU drivers working for a hobby OS. I suspect this was difficult. Unfortunately the blog makes no mention of it.
An installer extracts and moves a bunch of files from a blob to the filesystem, writes registry values (on Windows anyway), sets environment variables, sets up services, permissions and a bunch of other things, does it not?
A ROM is a binary blob that some executable accepts as input and interprets, the executable being the emulator, which simulates the target hardware well enough that the ROM's machine code runs as if it were on the original silicon.
While I like the idea of starting a hobby OS, but the most despairing thing about it that to be useful it would always have to implement 'legacy' interfaces of other OSes. That is, it cannot stand on its own and create a new ecosystem, instead it has to interface to the world and implement TCP, POSIX, know formats widely used files and such.
You end up with an OS kernel that talks Linux/Win32 and takes on a lot of compat code, protocols, and other paradigms.
I wonder what a hobby OS would have looked like it if it assumed nothing, that is, as a thought experiment, as if aliens on another planet invented computing and started writing OSes from scratch. Imagine we discover software from another planet that would not even work with 8-bit bytes, for instance.
> I wonder what a hobby OS would have looked like it if it assumed nothing
There's lots of stuff that was around in the 1960s that became dead-ends because everybody piled in on another way of doing something, and then things got optimised for that way, then every other way was less performant, and soon the lucky one way became the only way.
I've never really had much time to explore these early ideas from well before I was born whilst working, but definitely think it'd be a fun way to spend my time when I eventually retire - to try to recreate some of the stuff from that era that got forgotten and see what it could be developed into nowadays.
For example, just watch Douglas Engelbart's 1968 demo [1] for some ideas - some of the things presented in that took decades before it was rediscovered and implemented on systems available outside of research environments.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY
Does a hobby OS need to be useful?
You probably do want to speak IP, but if you want to do all the work, you don't need to use BSD sockets.
POSIX and other such things will let you use more of other people's software... but that's a choice.
You can also do a lot of reuse if you just want to focus on some parts. There's no need to write a bootloader unless you want to. You can pull in lwIP for the IP stack. You can do a lot of interesting (I think) things with barely any userland if you want.
If it's supposed to be a general purpose OS, you end up looking a lot like existing general purpose OSes though, cause it's hard to build everything and the closer you get to existing OSes, the more existing software you can leverage.
If you only want to run a subset of existing software, you might not need to cover that many of the syscalls from whatever OS it was targetted at. My hobby OS runs one specific FreeBSD executable, and it doesn't take that many syscalls to do it.
> Imagine we discover software from another planet that would not even work with 8-bit bytes, for instance.
8-bit bytes didn't become fully dominant until maybe the 1970s. It's a bit hard to find software older than that, but it's around somewhere.
If you have a goal of making your OS usable, you have to design it with this in mind. Build your kernel and driver subsystem in a way that legacy OS interfaces can be implemented on top of them. Find ways to repurpose existing infrastructure so you don't have to do all the work yourself.
For a hobby OS .. nobody is stopping you. I have my own hobby OS where everything is custom, I don't even have a standard C library, I made my own, I don't copy posix conventions, everything is just implemented as to what makes sense to me. I never understood the people that go through all the effort to work on their own OS, and all their work is to just create a linux/windows clone from scratch. Of course even accomplishing that is a huge achievement, but if you're going through all the effort, why not do something different?
Rob Pike of Plan 9 and Go fame lamented this back in 2000 in his “Systems Software Research is Irrelevant” talk:
http://herpolhode.com/rob/utah2000.pdf
I’d love to see a new operating system that explores radically different APIs for applications. The trouble is writing an operating system is a large effort. Barring market effects, OS has to be heads-and-shoulders better than existing ones in order to convince application developers to write software for it. Windows, macOS, and Linux are good enough for most people, even techies. Additionally, it is often easier to modify an existing operating system such as Linux than to go through the trouble of writing a brand new operating system.
It would probably look like the Third Temple.
Impressive! I like the goal of making a hobby OS viable as a daily driver.
I've been working on my own hobby OS for half a decade. It does a lot less, but it has helped me realize that we can remove much of the complexity of a generic mainstream OS while still meeting our personal computing needs. I know I'm just poorly reinventing something between DOS and Unix/Plan 9 in an extremely limited fashion, but it's absolutely perfect for experimentation!
This, I assume?: https://github.com/vinc/moros
Pretty impressive, you've gotten much farther than I ever did (I didn't have the patience to implement all the borderline boilerplate an OS needs).
Honestly the most interesting thing to me would be how they got GPU drivers working for a hobby OS. I suspect this was difficult. Unfortunately the blog makes no mention of it.
I bet it's just running llvm-pipe to render in software.
I wish people would start with a "rom format" for windows games. There's so many old games and no standardized way to run them.
You mean a packaged file that one simply runs? Isn't that the installer?
An installer extracts and moves a bunch of files from a blob to the filesystem, writes registry values (on Windows anyway), sets environment variables, sets up services, permissions and a bunch of other things, does it not?
A ROM is a binary blob that some executable accepts as input and interprets, the executable being the emulator, which simulates the target hardware well enough that the ROM's machine code runs as if it were on the original silicon.
You mean ISOs? ;)
I think he means where the DOS/config is all set up too. Sort of like a really small VM.
It was a joke, because ISO is a file copy of a CD-ROM disc. ;)
ScummVM has effectively done this.