Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Jun 2009 23:12 UTC, submitted by Bahadir
OSNews, Generic OSes It really is the week of back-to-core news for OSNews, as we've had news on various smaller operating systems and new projects. Forget Windows 7 and Snow Leopard; in the end this is what we're all here for. Anyway, B Labs has recently announced that version 0.1 of their Codezero microkernel has been released.
Order by: Score:

Comment by ShadesFox
by ShadesFox on Thu 11th Jun 2009 23:47 UTC
ShadesFox
Member since:
2006-10-01

You're article, it says 1.0 in the description...

RE: Comment by ShadesFox
by ivaniclixx on Fri 12th Jun 2009 08:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by ShadesFox"
ivaniclixx Member since:
2008-07-14

I am article?

Comment by merkoth
by merkoth on Fri 12th Jun 2009 01:30 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Nice! Great times for us OS enthusiasts. Lately, quite a few projects have arisen, some of them with very innovative ideas. It's nice to see so much activity in a sector clearly dominated by giants with a lot of history (Windows, and the various flavors of UNIX including MacOS).

Codezero
by strcpy on Fri 12th Jun 2009 07:20 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

Indeed. Great to see more kernels.

I could have been personally interested, but even without the copyright share agreement, GPL3 is a complete show-stopper, and even more so in the embedded sphere.

RE: Codezero
by hurdboy on Fri 12th Jun 2009 10:10 UTC in reply to "Codezero"
hurdboy Member since:
2005-09-02

Pretty much my thinking, too. Especially since there are other L4 variants you can use that are BSD-licensed.

The bigger story here is the number of L4 projects going on.

I still would be somewhat more interested in an L4/NetBSD port. Linux/glibc are just amazingly bloated these days.

RE[2]: Codezero
by fithisux on Sat 13th Jun 2009 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Codezero"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

or a finalized hurd on viegoos on L4 (Codezero?). Then we could port Apple's IOKit or QNX drivers.

RE: Codezero
by Sodki on Fri 12th Jun 2009 16:49 UTC in reply to "Codezero"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

GPL3 is a complete show-stopper, and even more so in the embedded sphere.

Care to explain why?

RE[2]: Codezero
by strcpy on Fri 12th Jun 2009 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Codezero"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Actually I would rather leave this as my personal opinion to which I am hopefully entitled to.

But there is a voice of my employer in there too: we (employees) do not touch (distribute) GPLv3 code no matter what and try to avoid GPLv2 at all costs, regardless of me and my personal opinions.

RE[3]: Codezero
by Sodki on Sat 13th Jun 2009 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Codezero"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

That's a good answer.

Repeating the past
by r_tty on Fri 12th Jun 2009 10:54 UTC
r_tty
Member since:
2009-06-09

Again the same things: L4, POSIX, C, Makefiles, ugly x86 "AT&T-style" assembly... I wonder, why people are so keen about repeating the past?

Isn't it much more exciting to design your own programming language, interfaces, environment, and then code your own OS there?

RE: Repeating the past
by Bahadir on Fri 12th Jun 2009 11:15 UTC in reply to "Repeating the past"
Bahadir Member since:
2007-05-19

I agree with you. First of all we don't use anything ugly and old. I hate them.

For example we don't have Makefiles. We use SCons (new).

We don't have ugly shell scripts. We use Python.

We don't have ugly x86 assembly, although assembly is in itself hard to read, please take a look at Codezero vectors.S you will see how well documented it is.

Codezero *is* indeed, a candidate for you to design your own environment and OS. The L4 API gives you the least common denominator mechanism to build different systems on top. The POSIX services are just an example.
What's better, is each of them may co-exist and interact on the same system.

The Codezero project started with the very same limitations I see in the existing systems that you have mentioned.

Looking more closely...
by r_tty on Fri 12th Jun 2009 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Repeating the past"
r_tty Member since:
2009-06-09

Okay, my apologies, I didn't notice that your system is for ARM only. I would definitely like to clone the git tree and look at your implementation more closely.

I praise the idea of having only the minimum of system calls in the kernel. I tried to clone QNX Neutrino kernel long time ago; I think it grew too much already (~64 syscalls).

I am currently developing a completely new programming system (kind of new language + IDE, but not exactly), and I'm looking for some open microkernel implementation that could become a basis for my own kernel (written in this new language).

Great work
by AlexanderTe on Fri 12th Jun 2009 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Repeating the past"
AlexanderTe Member since:
2009-05-18

I just want to say that I think that your contribution to the open source community is awesome.

I hope this isn’t way too off-topic, but I’ve got a UI project in the planning stage that shares similar goals, but it’s more aimed at the desktop. It could be interesting to use the kernel at some point though. If you want to check it out, take a look at http://brevityos.blogspot.com/.