... is almost here!
Give me a couple of days, it will be ready. Among the highlights are a new keyboard driver using IRQ1 and a malloc()/free() implementation by yours truly :)
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
TBOS32 has moved to a new site!
The great quok of the Quokkites has created QuokForge, the first project hosting site built for hobby operating systems. As such, I have moved TBOS32 to the Redmine-based QuokForge. I've also updated the www.tbos32.co.nr redirect to the new site. Yay! Thanks, quok!
Cheers!
--Troy
Cheers!
--Troy
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Eve Online sucked
I played it for about 30 minutes. It sucked ass. I was hoping for more of a Freelancer-style gameplay, but nope! Something a lot more boring.
*thinks of starting a Freelancer MMO server*
*thinks of starting a Freelancer MMO server*
Monday, June 22, 2009
rant from http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=20364
My opinions follow (contains colourful metaphors!):
I'm anti-GPL. I find the entire thing to be less of a free and open-source software license and more like a mass of hobbyist-approved, M$-style legalese. The BSD license, although extremely permissive, can logically be shortened down to two or three sentences. The rest is just to cover the developers' asses in the event someone uses their program and their computer shits itself.
The BSD license is interesting; it used to have four clauses, one of which was controversial. The original third clause said you had to include the following statement in your program and advertising: "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." It was removed in 1999 to create the three-clause license we call the BSD license today. Personally, I'm a major advocate of three-clause BSD (and the MIT license, too.)
Another fun little OSS license is the MIT license. It's basically a version of the two-clause BSD license but worded differently. FSF calls it the X11 license as it's most commonly used for (and was designed for use in) the X11 window system.
This one's kind of funny, and I'm not sure if I like it or not: The Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) for their Shared Source program. It's almost BSD-like but prohibits relicensing in source code form. It looks like Microsoft's response to the open source movement in the form of "Ballmer! Get the open source licensing people on the line! We're fucked!"
Oh gods no. It's not necessary, it's just evil. It kills our freedom to have our code used by the public following our guidelines, yet giving them lots of slack. It kills our freedom to have control, as users, over the way we're allowed to use the wonderful tools developers spend time writing for us.
I'm anti-GPL. I find the entire thing to be less of a free and open-source software license and more like a mass of hobbyist-approved, M$-style legalese. The BSD license, although extremely permissive, can logically be shortened down to two or three sentences. The rest is just to cover the developers' asses in the event someone uses their program and their computer shits itself.
The BSD license is interesting; it used to have four clauses, one of which was controversial. The original third clause said you had to include the following statement in your program and advertising: "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." It was removed in 1999 to create the three-clause license we call the BSD license today. Personally, I'm a major advocate of three-clause BSD (and the MIT license, too.)
Another fun little OSS license is the MIT license. It's basically a version of the two-clause BSD license but worded differently. FSF calls it the X11 license as it's most commonly used for (and was designed for use in) the X11 window system.
This one's kind of funny, and I'm not sure if I like it or not: The Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) for their Shared Source program. It's almost BSD-like but prohibits relicensing in source code form. It looks like Microsoft's response to the open source movement in the form of "Ballmer! Get the open source licensing people on the line! We're fucked!"
paxcoder wrote: Don't you think copyleft is a necessary "evil"? You say GPL wants us to "share-the-way-we-tell-you-to-or-don't-distribute", but I'm asking: what's the problem in that kind of sharing? What your freedoms does GPL compromise, accept your "freedom" to deprive someone else of the very same freedom you have been given? I see nothing "hypocritical" in it.
Oh gods no. It's not necessary, it's just evil. It kills our freedom to have our code used by the public following our guidelines, yet giving them lots of slack. It kills our freedom to have control, as users, over the way we're allowed to use the wonderful tools developers spend time writing for us.
http://negix.rootdirectory.de/?p=58 I highly encourage anyone on either side of the GPL-vs-BSD debate to read this (more so for the people one the anti-GPL side.)
So, I've reworked the todo list for TBOS32. 0.1.4 is going to be the debut release for the beginnings of the system call interface/library. And yes, folks, it works.
0.1.5 is going to have a more complete library and some hackish code in mush to run binaries off of the initrd. The floppy driver is currently on hold in favour of this and a few other things (TBA.)
So, I've reworked the todo list for TBOS32. 0.1.4 is going to be the debut release for the beginnings of the system call interface/library. And yes, folks, it works.
0.1.5 is going to have a more complete library and some hackish code in mush to run binaries off of the initrd. The floppy driver is currently on hold in favour of this and a few other things (TBA.)
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
I have had a wonderful month.
This month has been a wonderful one for me. I've released TBOS32 0.1.x, released TBOS16 1.1.0, discontinued TBOS16, and I'm celebrating my 14th birthday on Sunday. I also plan on releasing TBOS32 0.2.0 by this time next month, and many updates between now and then.
As for TBOS32's naming and versioning, I intend to keep calling it TBOS32. The versioning scheme of TBOS32 is x.y.z, where x = major version, y = minor version, and z = release.
Oh, and www.tbos.co.nr has had an overhaul.
EDIT: Well looky here, TBOS32 0.1.2!
As for TBOS32's naming and versioning, I intend to keep calling it TBOS32. The versioning scheme of TBOS32 is x.y.z, where x = major version, y = minor version, and z = release.
Oh, and www.tbos.co.nr has had an overhaul.
EDIT: Well looky here, TBOS32 0.1.2!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
TBOS 1.1.0 Release Announced on OSDev.org
http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20224
Yeah, that's it. Yay,
Oh, and one more thing. My versioning scheme sucks. I plan to release the next versions of TBOS (yeah, I'm not dropping it, just slowly rewriting it) with less major releases (the y in x.y.z) and more revisions (the z in x.y.z.)
Yeah, that's it. Yay,
Oh, and one more thing. My versioning scheme sucks. I plan to release the next versions of TBOS (yeah, I'm not dropping it, just slowly rewriting it) with less major releases (the y in x.y.z) and more revisions (the z in x.y.z.)
Monday, June 1, 2009
TBOS 1.1.0 -- HOLY CRAP IT'S OUT!!!!!
http://code.google.com/p/tbos2/downloads/detail?name=tbos-1.1.0.zip&can=2&q=
"d00d, ub3r 1337 h4x, j00 g0t 1t 0ut!!!!111oneon1!!oeone"
Yes. I am a lazy, half-assed programmer. Download it and test it, and constructive criticism on the bugs is appreciated.
"d00d, ub3r 1337 h4x, j00 g0t 1t 0ut!!!!111oneon1!!oeone"
Yes. I am a lazy, half-assed programmer. Download it and test it, and constructive criticism on the bugs is appreciated.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Future for TBOS, Part II
First, I'd like to say that if anyone wants to, feel free to link to us in your forum signature somewhere with this dynamic userbar: http://designer.userbars.com/dynubd1742.png
Second, to discuss the future. Recently, in the Elite Café, I said I was thinking of dropping support for TBOS (16) and rewriting TBOS32 in C. Well, I'm certainly doing the second, and I'm actually thinking about fulfilling the first. I find TBOS to be extremely insecure and basically a bad MikeOS clone. If someone wants to continue development of TBOS, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Second, to discuss the future. Recently, in the Elite Café, I said I was thinking of dropping support for TBOS (16) and rewriting TBOS32 in C. Well, I'm certainly doing the second, and I'm actually thinking about fulfilling the first. I find TBOS to be extremely insecure and basically a bad MikeOS clone. If someone wants to continue development of TBOS, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
No, I swear, it will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen again.
... ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ...
This will be the final note before the release of TBOS 1.1.0, I promise. I hope to have it out and ready by Sunday night (PST.)
This will be the final note before the release of TBOS 1.1.0, I promise. I hope to have it out and ready by Sunday night (PST.)
Friday, May 22, 2009
Oh, hey, look! Another todo list!
- TBOS 1.1: FIREY ANVIL r0, hash 0.4
- TBOS 1.2: multiuserness fixed, FIREY ANVIL r1
- TBOS 1.3: hash 1.0 (oooh, colours)
- ........
- TBOS 2.0: some simple cross-compiler (probably BASIC)
I appear to have a new plan.
I've started re-implementing FIREY ANVIL (which was lost after a complete TBOS failure scare that turned out to be a bad segment register) and it should be done and in Python) to make FIREY ANVIL entries for TBOS files.
The kernel and loader must stay FAT files, as I don't think I could write FIREY ANVIL routines in the three or four bytes the boot sector has left :P
Ahh well, off to school.
The kernel and loader must stay FAT files, as I don't think I could write FIREY ANVIL routines in the three or four bytes the boot sector has left :P
Ahh well, off to school.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
WHOA!
[TroyMartin] my plan is as follows: rewrite part of the FAT12 code for 1.2, then write a nice little FS in 1.3
<pc[work]> ah nice
[TroyMartin] I was also thinking of having the special FS be the main TBOS filesystem, just using FAT12 as a "container" of sorts
[TroyMartin] FAT12 doesn't really do much justice :D
A little snippet from a discussion in #pedigree on freenode. In all honesty, I don't like Microsloth's FATty file system, and I originally intended to use something completely different, but FAT stuck with the history of TBOS.
Whatever the TBOS filesystem will be called (the codename is Firey Anvil), I plan to use FAT12 as a container for either Firey Anvil files or the filesystem itself. I'll be uploading spec sheets as I write them.
Friday, May 1, 2009
I have seen the future...
...and it involves a rewrite!
I'm planning on releasing TBOS 1.1 this fine May weekend and then doing a bunch of rewrites to important/bloated/copied pieces of code (for example the entire k_fs.asm.) I'm also hoping to pump out a multi-user system for TBOS 1.x by the end of the month.
I'm planning on releasing TBOS 1.1 this fine May weekend and then doing a bunch of rewrites to important/bloated/copied pieces of code (for example the entire k_fs.asm.) I'm also hoping to pump out a multi-user system for TBOS 1.x by the end of the month.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
TBOS 1.1 Progress
Well, my plan to release by the 18th was a bust...
So, I inadvertently fixed an error which was causing me to look for another error which caused me to do a complete rewrite of tbosload.sys, and once that was giving me sh!t, I pulled three lines of code out of the kernel, built the old tbosload.sys, put it all on a floppy, and it now officially works. Don't ask what, just wait for the release!
Let's just say AUTOEXEC.BAT was undoubtably one of the most useful DOS thingies ever. :)
I'm planning, from now on, to release TBOS in two separate packages: the source version and the install version. The install version will use the new features with setup.bin to create a working setup disk.
So, I inadvertently fixed an error which was causing me to look for another error which caused me to do a complete rewrite of tbosload.sys, and once that was giving me sh!t, I pulled three lines of code out of the kernel, built the old tbosload.sys, put it all on a floppy, and it now officially works. Don't ask what, just wait for the release!
Let's just say AUTOEXEC.BAT was undoubtably one of the most useful DOS thingies ever. :)
I'm planning, from now on, to release TBOS in two separate packages: the source version and the install version. The install version will use the new features with setup.bin to create a working setup disk.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Future for TBOS
Recently, while working on hash 0.4.0 for the release of TBOS 1.1.0 in a few days, I started thinking about what would happen to TBOS in the next few months (TBOS 1.x releases.) I came up with the following releases and their major features:
- TBOS 1.1 - hash 0.4, setup.bin
- TBOS 1.2 - multi-user capabilities, serial access
- TBOS 1.3 - partial MS-DOS and MikeOS compatibility
- ...
- TBOS 2.0 - port/write assembler, increase programming capabilities
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Windows Server 2003 as a Domain Controller
I love it.
I downloaded the WS2003 180-day trial recently and installed it in VMware Server II. This afternoon, I painstakingly set up a DNS server and Active Directory, and recently got a Windows XP and a 98 client logging into the domain. Granted, I need to give each a static IP instead of using the router's DHCP server, but it connects to the network and the internet fine!
I've also set up a document/network drive system that works wonders. The X: drive is set to be the user's nice little chunk of the small 20GB virtual drive I'm using.
Now I just need to get a crapload of people using my server :P
I downloaded the WS2003 180-day trial recently and installed it in VMware Server II. This afternoon, I painstakingly set up a DNS server and Active Directory, and recently got a Windows XP and a 98 client logging into the domain. Granted, I need to give each a static IP instead of using the router's DHCP server, but it connects to the network and the internet fine!
I've also set up a document/network drive system that works wonders. The X: drive is set to be the user's nice little chunk of the small 20GB virtual drive I'm using.
Now I just need to get a crapload of people using my server :P
Monday, April 6, 2009
Lookit Me, I'm a Crusader
An ongoing holy war is that of Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac. Normally, that wouldn't be a bad thing, and we'd all be taking sides. Windows would be winning, since it's what the new folks these days are being brought up on and 99 percent of store-bought computers are loaded with some edition of Vista.
Another bunch of holy wars, albeit smaller, are the license wars: BSD vs. GPL, etc. Personal choice? BSD. What's winning? Depends on who you talk to.
This can continue on and on. IE vs. FF, Gnome vs. KDE, to a lesser extent WPA vs. WEP, the list goes forever.
To quote ThymeCypher: "You forgot the even worse Apple monopoly. I’d like to see someone DARE an open source OSX clone like ReactOS without Apple threatening various lawsuits and every fan boy out there immaturely throwing F-bombs and whatnot as if you have to be worthy to breathe the same air as Steve Jobs. Pshh."
Another bunch of holy wars, albeit smaller, are the license wars: BSD vs. GPL, etc. Personal choice? BSD. What's winning? Depends on who you talk to.
This can continue on and on. IE vs. FF, Gnome vs. KDE, to a lesser extent WPA vs. WEP, the list goes forever.
To quote ThymeCypher: "You forgot the even worse Apple monopoly. I’d like to see someone DARE an open source OSX clone like ReactOS without Apple threatening various lawsuits and every fan boy out there immaturely throwing F-bombs and whatnot as if you have to be worthy to breathe the same air as Steve Jobs. Pshh."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)