From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
>On 22/03/2023 00:14, Dan Cross wrote:
>> So, is anyone here actually working on developing real, novel
>> operating systems on modern hardware here? It would be
>> interesting to have a USENET outlet for such things, which I had
>> hoped this newsgroup might be, but it seems dominated by other
>> things.
>>
>> - Dan C.
>
>I haven't read the whole thread so someone else may have already made
>this point but your reference to 'modern hardware' seems to be a curious
>one. Many of the goals of an OS, AISI, involve providing an abstraction
>which does two things:
>
>1. provides a common view of hardware so that programs running under the
>OS don't have to care about hardware specifics,
>
>2. allows exploitation of hardware only in so far as not to conflict
>with point 1.
>
>Many of the past discussions here have been about coping with hardware
>differences.
>
>Am curious, though, if you are still reading what novel modern hardware
>facilities did you have in mind? (Presumably significantly more than
>paging and privilege levels, etc.)
Well, the point of mentioning "modern hardware" was to ask if
people here are targeting things that are actually being made by
mainstream vendors (e.g., someone's 8086 laptop doesn't really
count). Most of the posts in this group are about DOS clones or
other similar stuff. That's not interesting.
So it's not so about about novelty as it is about simply being
current, and more capable than DOS or whatever.
That said, there _are_ novel hardware facilities that are
important to explore: OS bypass, very high speed IO buses,
many-core systems, very large memory systems, and evolving
system interfaces to accommodate these. Is a highly synchronous
system interface that tries to make a "process" look like a
super-sized PDP-11 still appropriate on modern machines?
- Dan C.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
