OSDev.org

The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:53 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 392
zaval: unreasonable architecture fanboyism is the new religion of the XXI century: behead those who insult x86! cut the hands who hurt the holy arm cows! the high priest of the protected mode cursed you, the acolyte of the SQL databases throwing a rock at you.

now, mips.
well i did some investigations with mips. its basically very similar to arm, a little less bloatware, but its prety much influenced by the x86 (as it born in the same era) and if we think on the IO its almost the same crap is happened to it like the x86, it interhited very similar paging for example. i did some investigations with it, and i was not amused by the performance. it have a lot of registers for example, that would cause a big speed achievement over x86 for example. but that is never going to happen, since the context switching of the 32 piece of registers to serve a system call for example (copy all of it from/to memory) is alone slower than the rest of the work including possibly even to do the work for the call itself. it received also multiple types of opcode extensions, fpus and simd units in the hope that it will make the platform better (no, its not). now the only corporation that actively uses it is a chinese corporation called longson (godson), they even bilt a hardware x86 accelerator circuit into the cpu to accelerate the speeds of qemu a bit. its actually a reason why mips is even more a ghost than subleq.

_________________
Operating system for SUBLEQ cpu architecture:
http://DawnOS.tk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 8019
Location: At his keyboard!
Hi,

Geri wrote:
well i did some investigations with mips. its basically very similar to arm, a little less bloatware, but its prety much influenced by the x86 (as it born in the same era) and if we think on the IO its almost the same crap is happened to it like the x86, it interhited very similar paging for example.


Paging dates back to the mid 1960s (VAX, IBM system/360, etc). These older systems influenced everything that came after (including ARM, MIPS and 80x86) because nobody has been able to find an alternative that is better for virtual memory management.

Geri wrote:
i did some investigations with it, and i was not amused by the performance. it have a lot of registers for example, that would cause a big speed achievement over x86 for example. but that is never going to happen, since the context switching of the 32 piece of registers to serve a system call for example (copy all of it from/to memory) is alone slower than the rest of the work including possibly even to do the work for the call itself.


From a CPU designer's point of view; 80x86 has any number of general purpose registers (e.g. a specific CPU could have 256 general purpose registers), but there are only 16 names. The CPU does "register renaming" to map names to actual registers.

If you're doing task switches so often that the benefits of additional registers outweigh the context switch costs; then you're doing task switches far too often.

Geri wrote:
it received also multiple types of opcode extensions, fpus and simd units in the hope that it will make the platform better (no, its not).


Floating point (like paging) also dates back to the 1960s. SIMD is a little more recent and dates back to the 1970s. Both of these things were adopted by later CPUs (including MIPS, ARM and 80x86) because nobody has been able to find better alternatives for the purposes they're intended.

Geri wrote:
now the only corporation that actively uses it is a chinese corporation called longson (godson), they even bilt a hardware x86 accelerator circuit into the cpu to accelerate the speeds of qemu a bit. its actually a reason why mips is even more a ghost than subleq.


Before SUBLEQ can become a ghost, somebody has to be stupid enough to manufacture it. Nobody is that stupid, so SUBLEQ can only dream of becoming a ghost.


Cheers,

Brendan

_________________
For all things; perfection is, and will always remain, impossible to achieve in practice. However; by striving for perfection we create things that are as perfect as practically possible. Let the pursuit of perfection be our guide.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 886
Location: Athens, GA, USA
Geri wrote:
i am a very shitty business man, but i am still able to sell my OS and other works.


Wait, are you claiming that someone has actually purchased a license for Dawn? Because that is certainly how it sounds, and, quite frankly, I am rather skeptical about that assertion, skeptical to the point that I would say you are being outright dishonest. I'd almost accuse you of trolling at this point.

You also make several claims that are even more absurd. For example, you state that Unix, CP/M, and MS-DOS are similar, and influenced each other. This anhistorical assertion seems to be based solely in the fact that they were all text-based, but given the time period, that means nothing about how similar they were, because for all intents and purposes, all systems were text-mode at that time.

The only GUIs which were around before 1983 - the year both the Lisa and the Star were unveiled, and the year Project Athena began as a research project on GUI development - were NLS and the Smalltalk User Environment (and no, I don't mean the language, I mean the environment - the PARC UI came first, around 1970, and the language was named after it in 1972 because it was developed for scripting it based on Kay's experiments with a Logo derivative called Flex at MIT). NLS was an experiment in user experience, and ran on a series of different mainframes (the CDC-160A as a bare system, then a CDC-3100 under what I assume was either MASTER or SCOPE, then an SDS-940 under BTS, then finally a PDP-10 under Tenex, each version being a ground-up re-write in assembly and only the last two being graphical to any real degree). There was a graphical console for the CADR machine (the predecessor of the LMI and Symbolics Lisp Machines), but that was an experimental one-shot system with what was at the time unique hardware, and it was only graphical in that it could render graphics. There was the LINC-12, which was similar, though that was at least mass-produced. Similarly, there were graphical programs for some PDP-10 mainframe operating systems such as ITS, WAITS and Tenex, but they were also experimental things that used specialized consoles and needed to be scheduled so that all the timesharing users could be kicked off while the experiments were running; their main method of use remained text-mode.

And finally there were were the early microcomputers, most of which had a graphical mode, but because they mostly used television sets as monitors, the resolutions for the non-text modes weren't suited for text display, hence the need for two or more modes.

That's about it. Graphical displays were a rarity, and graphical user interfaces were still basically experiments, even as Xerox and Apple began trying (unsuccessfully at first) to market them.

So much for text being a similarity. Unix and MS-DOS were nothing alike in most other regards. For example, Unix, which was based in Multics in many ways but eliminated some of the 'vital parts' (hence the punny name - 'eunuchs', get it?), was a multitasking OS from the start, something which was crucial in the entire 'IPC through pipes' shenanigans. So why did they both use similar command line systems? Well... they didn't. MS-DOS borrowed some things from Unix later, but initially they were completely dissimilar. One can argue that MS-DOS copied CP/M, but trust me, CP/M didn't copy Unix - Unix was an obscure oddity when Kildall started work on CP/M in 1974, and the main influence on it was Tenex, not Multics.

If you still really think MS-DOS and Unix were similar, I dare you to run a Bourne shell script from that time period on an MS-DOS machine of any period without a specialized interpreter.

The claim that MIPS is similar to x86 is simply bizarre, and indicates a genuine lack of understanding of CPU architecture. Seriously, how anyone could find anything similar between the mess that is the 8086, and the remarkable (if perhaps excessive) minimalism of the MIPS and DLX designs, even as compared to OISC, is beyond comprehension. Name even one aspect of them that is similar that cannot be found in every actual CPU architecture after 1970, and I will be amazed.

No, OISC doesn't count - it is, believe it or not, actually emulated in microcode in every conceivable hardware implementation, because (as I learned the hard way when entertaining my own flights of fancy in this arena) real hardware needs registers. Any Turing complete computing machine based on the Random Access Machine model that doesn't use registers explicitly will need to have microcode to use them implicitly, period, end of subject. This isn't something you can handwave away - Subleq is not a simple instruction, and there is no way to implement it as one. It is an intrinsically compound operation, one which actually hides very real complexity.

In any case, what does the CPU architecture have to do with the price of chewing gum? NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT, because all of this is buried under mounds and mounds of software - software like the BIOS, which is only 'hardware' in that it is stored in a permanent or semi-permanent medium (hence 'firmware'). Firmware is still software; it's just software that is embedded into how the hardware runs, and can know details about the hardware that are less discoverable without it. It doesn't do anything that can't be done in software that isn't stored in Flash memory, and due to the historical development of the PC, it isn't a particularly good set of programs.

CPU architecture has next to nothing to do with the complexity of the operating systems and development tools. You seem to think that you can scale some implementation of Subleq as an FPLA or a strung-together pile of TTL tinkertoys into something that can complete with CPUs implemented as 22nm integrated circuits, or else that someone is going to front the $5 billion it would cost for a silicon implementation to be brought to life - and that is the most outrageous part of all of this. Even assuming that were true, how would it make coding in a language like C any different? Even for an OS, most C code is going to be the same no matter the hardware. You simply don't seem to have thought any of this through.

_________________
Rev. First Speaker Schol-R-LEA;2 LCF ELF JAM POEE KoR KCO PPWMTF
μή εἶναι βασιλικήν ἀτραπόν ἐπί γεωμετρίαν
Lisp programmers tend to seem very odd to outsiders, just like anyone else who has had a religious experience they can't quite explain to others.


Last edited by Schol-R-LEA on Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:34 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 392
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Wait, are you claiming that someone has actually purchased a license for Dawn? Because that is certain how it sounds, and, quite frankly, I a rather skeptical about that assertion, skeptical to the point that I would say you are being outright dishonest, and even accuse you of trolling.


dogecoin transactions are public.
https://dogechain.info/address/DNNJJT7f ... yBdiusEUvi

dawn operating system is a very great system for scientifical and general purpose usage.
its worth buying it. dawn operating system have a bright future.

now as the coin prices skyrocketed, i will have to half/third down the prices soon.

oh, on summer i will probably sell another 10-15 license. i alreday negotiating, and also i cant yet talk from some very very important things yet that will may or may not upcome.
Image

you know we are still living in a somewhat capitalistic society, well at least at me, i dont know what is going up in greece.
i really hope that people not feel pain for i being able to sell licenses from my software. my software i put efforts, time, and energy into. i am really hope people here will not feel envy and hate becouse i am succesfully managing somewhat I MADE with my own energy, on my own pain, on my own risk.

i am a capitalist - in a good manner. i always was, and i always will be.


Schol-R-LEA wrote:
You also make several claims that are even more absurd. For example, you state that Unix, CP/M, and MS-DOS are similar, and influenced each other. This anhistorical assertion seems to be based solely in the fact that they were all text-based, but given the time period, that means nothing about how similar they were, because for all intents and purposes, all systems were text-mode at that time.


the command set, the ability of command switches, the apperance, and the style of cpm, msdos, and unix is very similar. we safely can say that they are each others clones. its irrelevant how the commands differ, and how advenced one above the another one is, its still the same cd directory enter binary name and enter convention disk operating system. unix just had better propaganda and better development curve than msdos, thats all.


Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Seriously, how anyone could find anything similar between the mess that is the 8086, and the remarkable (if perhaps excessive) minimalism of the MIPS and DLX designs (...) Name even one aspect of them that is similar that cannot be found in every actual CPU architecture after 1970, and I will be amazed.


a computer is not just a cpu, a cpu is heavily integrated with the chipset. if the underlying hardware is basically identical to the last screw, the underlying architecture will influence the other cpu type too. and thats what is happened to mips. look its disk access, look at its paging, look at its everything: its basically the same, even if the instruction set of the cpu is obviously different. the arm architecture does not falled into this trap, on arm these aspects are obviously very different.

_________________
Operating system for SUBLEQ cpu architecture:
http://DawnOS.tk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:23 am
Posts: 100
Quote:
dogecoin transactions are public.
https://dogechain.info/address/DNNJJT7f ... yBdiusEUvi

Sure, they're public, but the addresses behind them aren't. I highly doubt you managed to scam someone stupid enough to buy your 'OS'.

Quote:
the command set, the ability of command switches, the apperance, and the style of cpm, msdos, and unix is very similar. we safely can say that they are each others clones.

By the same reasoning, humans are all clones of each other because they look and function alike.

Quote:
what is happened to mips. look its disk access,

LOL? I'm 99% sure the CPU doesn't do disk I/O, maybe I'm wrong(You do actually do port I/O and MMIO through it, though)?

_________________
If some of you people keep insisting on having backwards compatibitity with the stone age, we'll have stone tools forever.
My Hobby OS: https://github.com/heatd/Spartix


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:15 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 392
heat wrote:
I highly doubt you managed to scam someone stupid enough to buy your 'OS'.

maybe you need to ,,scam'' people to even sell something, i dont know.
i appreciate my costumers, and always sell them proper proucts. i treat my costumers like i would wait sellers to treat me if i would be they costumers.


Quote:
By the same reasoning, humans are all clones of each other because they look and function alike.

bad example. the dna of two random human is 99,9% identical, we are basically clones of each other.

Quote:
LOL? I'm 99% sure the CPU doesn't do disk I/O, maybe I'm wrong(You do actually do port I/O and MMIO through it, though)?
[/quote]
i dont remember mips so deeply, i wasnt put efforts to autise on it.

_________________
Operating system for SUBLEQ cpu architecture:
http://DawnOS.tk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:01 pm
Posts: 1076
heat wrote:
Sure, they're public, but the addresses behind them aren't. I highly doubt you managed to scam someone stupid enough to buy your 'OS'.

A bit of searching led me to this person, who is unlikely to be Geri based on the writing style.

I suspect they purchased the license purely because they could do so using Dogecoin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 392
yes. the os was mostly advertised in the dogecoin communitys at first. other sales however not be related to coins, and not publicly trackable - the upcoming mentioned sales will be also not trackable. by the way i can suggest dogecoin, if somebody want to sell software on the internet.

_________________
Operating system for SUBLEQ cpu architecture:
http://DawnOS.tk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:56 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 886
Location: Athens, GA, USA
Geri wrote:
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
You also make several claims that are even more absurd. For example, you state that Unix, CP/M, and MS-DOS are similar, and influenced each other. This anhistorical assertion seems to be based solely in the fact that they were all text-based, but given the time period, that means nothing about how similar they were, because for all intents and purposes, all systems were text-mode at that time.


the command set, the ability of command switches, the apperance, and the style of cpm, msdos, and unix is very similar. we safely can say that they are each others clones. its irrelevant how the commands differ, and how advenced one above the another one is, its still the same cd directory enter binary name and enter convention disk operating system. unix just had better propaganda and better development curve than msdos, thats all.


The directory structure was copied whole cloth from Unix (which copied Multics, which copied CTSS going way back to 1963), that's true... in MS-DOS 2.2, more than three years after MS-DOS was introduced (it didn't have directories before then at all, and CP/M never had them, at least not as part of the file system proper). The commands were similar in that they were text... but so were the command systems for ITS, Tenex, VM/CMS, Apple II ProDOS (AppleDOS, and several others like Commodore 64 and the Atari 8-bit systems, didn't have a separate command interpreter, instead dropping you right into the BASIC interpreter instead) and a dozen other OSes which had no connection to speak of to either Unix nor CP/M.

And it ignores a lot of things that are very, very different, such as the fact that MS-DOS works directly with every disk by disk letter, an arrangement typical of microcomputers of the time, whereas disks in minicomputer and mainframe OSes like Unix always mounted the disks as sub-directories of a root directory. Or the fact that Unix required hardware memory protection to run at all after some early version (definitely by v6, which was the version used in the Lions book). Or that it was designed for timesharing, meaning that most users weren't even in the same building as the computer itself (as I said, it was a timesharing system), and you might have up to 32 people trying to use the same computer at the same time.

In contrast, the 8088 had no CPU memory protection (segmentation existed, but it wasn't protection - its purpose was to allow 16-bit addressing on a 20-bit machine) and the PC didn't add any on top of it that MS-DOS could have used. MS-DOS didn't really run at all except when at the command.com prompt - once a program started, it had control of the entire system, and MS-DOS wouldn't even stay completely resident if a program needed the memory it was using, but would have to have the stub left in memory load the rest of itself back in once the program exited.

Things like interrupt handlers were set up by MS-DOS, true, but there was nothing to stop a program from replacing those hooks with it's own - which is in fact how early Terminate-and-Stay-Resident (TSR) utilities like Sidekick worked. No OS running on something the size of a PDP-11 or a VAX would ever be so sloppy (mind you, Unix was and still is pretty sloppy, compared to many of the OSes of the time, but not nearly that sloppy). MS-DOS wasn't a full OS by most standards, more of a program launcher with a built-in library for handling a few of the hardware operations, and had nothing anyone could call a kernel or nucleus (the accepted term for the main part of an OS before Unix mangled all the terminology). It is more than a monitor (a type of system loader used in the 1950s that predated operating systems, and came back into use briefly in the 1970s as microcomputers came along), but only barely.

Geri wrote:
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
Seriously, how anyone could find anything similar between the mess that is the 8086, and the remarkable (if perhaps excessive) minimalism of the MIPS and DLX designs (...) Name even one aspect of them that is similar that cannot be found in every actual CPU architecture after 1970, and I will be amazed.

a computer is not just a cpu, a cpu is heavily integrated with the chipset.


stares in abject horror at the absurdity of this assertion You don't actually believe that, do you? I mean... you think that the 8088 was designed with the PC BIOS and chipset (something the original PC didn't have, at least not in the way the term is used today) in mind, and is dependent on it? Are you insane?

I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. The BIOS and chipset depends on the CPU, but only because it is designed to work with it; the reverse is not even close to true even today, when Intel is indeed targeting their own chipsets as the default ones. Notice the word default; they can work with other ones, but they wouldn't be compatible, so no one bothers. In the past, when the 'chipset' was a dozen chips hacked together by IBM for their own system - a literal 'chip set' that any PC clone would have to imitate, and which modern implementations still partially emulate, hence the term - there were at least a dozen different small computer types built around the 8086 and 8088, most of which were not even remotely PC-compatible. This was also true when the 80386 was developed - most of the machines built with the 386 in the first two years were Unix workstations made by Sun and Apollo, and were nothing like the PC. The entire idea of 'stock hardware' didn't really exist until the late 1980s, at the earliest.

Geri wrote:
if the underlying hardware is basically identical to the last screw, the underlying architecture will influence the other cpu type too.


I have no idea what you are saying here, and I suspect that you don't either.

Geri wrote:
and thats what is happened to mips. look its disk access, look at its paging, look at its everything: its basically the same, even if the instruction set of the cpu is obviously different. the arm architecture does not falled into this trap, on arm these aspects are obviously very different.


I suspect that you have only seen MIPS in the form of the SPIM simulator. Ah... that's a teaching tool, not an emulator for a real system. Actual MIPS based workstations weren't much like that at all back in the day, and neither are any of the MIPS-based embedded hardware or proto boards today. Programs written for SPIM won't run on something like the Creator C120 unless you add a set of flash ROMs specifically to emulate the emulator. Most MIPS systems? The hardware interfacing is all done as memory mapping, which resembles the IO ports of the x86 about the same way that a racing skiff resembles a garbage barge.

Mid you, I am pretty sure you are talking about the system call handlers which the micro-mini-monitor thingie that SPIM loads by default to provide simplified I/O services, rather than the emulated hardware itself. Yeah... so, basically, you can't tell the difference between a computer (simulated or otherwise) from the OS or BIOS running on it. Right, good to know. BTW, you can replace that monitor program if you really want to. No one ever bothers except in classwork meant to demonstrate it, though, and most courses don't even get that far.

_________________
Rev. First Speaker Schol-R-LEA;2 LCF ELF JAM POEE KoR KCO PPWMTF
μή εἶναι βασιλικήν ἀτραπόν ἐπί γεωμετρίαν
Lisp programmers tend to seem very odd to outsiders, just like anyone else who has had a religious experience they can't quite explain to others.


Last edited by Schol-R-LEA on Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:04 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:29 am
Posts: 709
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
My foe list will soon overflow, whoa.

_________________
Learn to read.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:51 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:52 pm
Posts: 284
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Geri wrote:
This isn't the proper way to handle transactions. Don't reuse addresses.

_________________
com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus.InternalFrameInternalFrameTitlePaneInternalFrameTitlePaneMaximizeButtonWindowNotFocusedState
Compiler Development Forum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:45 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:40 am
Posts: 406
Location: Athens, Greece
Hi,


I won't comment on technical matters because I have other things to do, but what's up with this quote?
Quote:
you know we are still living in a somewhat capitalistic society, well at least at me, i dont know what is going up in greece.
What does Greece specifically have to do with that?


Edit: Rereading this I thought here was a misunderstanding:
Geri wrote:
Brendan wrote:
UEFI
irrelevant, it not exist on older hardware, so its cant be used
For the record, in the future (if not already) there will be computers without BIOS but with UEFI, so you need to support both BIOS and UEFI. Brendan however didn't say exactly that, but that's what he meant.

Edit: Oh no.


Regards,
glauxosdever

_________________
Before implementing any piece of software, make sure you have designed it to be extendable. Backporting new features into old code is not always easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:43 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 392
glauxosdever wrote:
What does Greece specifically have to do with that?

the quote was about we are living in asomewhat capitalistic systems - but he is from greece, and becouse i dont know greece, i cant make statements about it.


Quote:
there will be computers without BIOS but with UEFI, so you need to support both BIOS and UEFI. Brendan however didn't say exactly that, but that's what he meant.

i would rather see flying skateboards in the future and not uefi x86s

_________________
Operating system for SUBLEQ cpu architecture:
http://DawnOS.tk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:45 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:01 pm
Posts: 392
matt11235 wrote:
Don't reuse addresses.

you can safely reuse it.

_________________
Operating system for SUBLEQ cpu architecture:
http://DawnOS.tk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How to make an operating system to x86 within a month fr
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:49 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:38 pm
Posts: 508
Location: Victoria, Canada
Dear Lord almighty Geri stop this incessant shitposting before you actually sway someone new to OS development towards thinking along the same broken, incessantly obtuse lines that you do.

I have seen a lot of crap on these forums over the last 12 years but never have I seen someone so aggressively intent on spouting such factually incorrect drivel.

_________________
The good thing about Unix is when it screws up, it does so very quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group