Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2017 23:53 UTC, submitted by elbing
OSNews, Generic OSes

Ending this year, Ron G. Minnich has got Harvey running in RISC-V architecture, booting Harvey on Spike (ISA Simulator) and running rc shell on it. But he never rests and now is working on bringing it to QEMU and to FPGA. It's a big step for Harvey because we fixed some multiarch issues across the source and Ron found some bugs in timer interrupts in the hardware, so we all learned something.

What is Harvey OS?

Harvey is an effort to provide a modern, distributed, 64 bit operating system. A different environment for researching and finding new lines of work. It can be built with gcc and clang and has an ANSI/POSIX compliant subsystem.

Two news items about alternative operating systems in a row?

The year's off to a good start.

Order by: Score:
Harvey is a white rabbit --> plan9
by cybergorf on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 00:18 UTC
cybergorf
Member since:
2008-06-30

The name is a hint.
Harvey is a invisible giant white rabbit in the 1950s movie of the same name.
Glenda, the Plan9 mascot, is a white bunny ...

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Their logo as well.

Reply Score: 2

crystall
Member since:
2007-02-06

Can't do better than this on OSNews

Reply Score: 2

From the website...
by matthekc on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 08:25 UTC
matthekc
Member since:
2006-10-28

Harvey is a 64 bit distributed operating system under GPL.

For now it runs in x86_64 (amd64) machines, but we're working at RISCV and ARM64 (aarch64) support. We're improving now the kernel and userland, trying to bring up a full usable operating system, modern and, at the same time, keeping ideas and concepts from other platforms what we consider very interesting. We collected some code and ideas of Plan 9 from Bell Labs, in addition to researching code from NIX and NxM, with some influences from Linux, BSD and in general from Unix world.

Harvey is a general purpose operating system, so every idea you can think could be welcome here. Come and see, and do it by yourself.

Reply Score: 3

RE: From the website...
by piotr.dobrogost on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 14:07 UTC in reply to "From the website..."
piotr.dobrogost Member since:
2011-10-04

How does it compare to Genode?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: From the website...
by cybergorf on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: From the website..."
cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

How does it compare to Genode?


not at all - it's like apples and oranges ... or in this case rabbits and horses.

Genode is a framework. It aims to allow you to use any (micro)kernel with whatever userland you choose.

Harvey aims to be a full OS with own kernel and own (posix) userland.

Edited 2017-01-03 19:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: From the website...
by piotr.dobrogost on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: From the website..."
piotr.dobrogost Member since:
2011-10-04

"How does it compare to Genode?


not at all - it's like apples and oranges ... or in this case rabbits and horses.

Genode is a framework. It aims to allow you to use any (micro)kernel with whatever userland you choose.

Harvey aims to be a full OS with own kernel and own (posix) userland.
"

So this does not seems like apples and oranges at all. If Genode as you say can combine any kernel with any userland then how would an OS built using Genode and utilizing Harvey's kernel and Harvey's userland compare to Harvey the original? ;) Would you still call it apples and oranges?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: From the website...
by cybergorf on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From the website..."
cybergorf Member since:
2008-06-30

Genode is concentrating its efforts towards microkernels mainly. Linux as a development platform is a exception to that.

But as you ask:
Yes you can run Genode with a Linux kernel as host and a second paravirtualized Linux for the userland. Same would theoretically be possible for Harvey if someone is willing to to the work.

But still this does not make it comparable by any useful means.
Genode is a framework or api-layer between kernel and userland.
Harvey is a operating system on its own.

Edited 2017-01-03 23:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Still no ISO.
by Giorgos on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 13:54 UTC
Giorgos
Member since:
2015-12-06

As much as I love compiling programs, I think an entire OS, must be available for downloading as an ISO file (and optionally for USB stick).

Happy New Year to everyone!!! :-)
G.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still no ISO.
by henderson101 on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 14:46 UTC in reply to "Still no ISO."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

As much as I love compiling programs, I think an entire OS, must be available for downloading as an ISO file (and optionally for USB stick).


I dunno, I compiled an entire OS on a dual 66MHz PowerPC 603 based system once. It took over 8 hours. What's wrong with that?? ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still no ISO.
by Giorgos on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Still no ISO."
Giorgos Member since:
2015-12-06

Oh nothing! Nothing at all!!!
Well...except....of the 8h compile process. :-)

I'm getting a bit lazy, these days! :-)
G.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Still no ISO.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Still no ISO."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

As long as it spits out chars to stdout at tremendous speed, any length of compilation is satisfying. I hate those that just sit at the command line and do nothing before returning success. I kind of need that satisfaction that the code is being processed and run

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Still no ISO.
by Alfman on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still no ISO."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Bill Shooter of Bul,

As long as it spits out chars to stdout at tremendous speed, any length of compilation is satisfying. I hate those that just sit at the command line and do nothing before returning success. I kind of need that satisfaction that the code is being processed and run.


Yeah, as long as the build finishes without error, I'm pretty happy just to see text flying by. But when a build takes an hour only to throw out an error forcing you to restart it...oh god why have thou forsaken me?

I could certainly do without all the legacy build systems that are prevalent with C/C++ development. Having autoconf tools that test for strtol and other nonsense for the Nth time over and over again only to error out with missing dependencies is so frustrating. Then even the compilation step is slow compared to other languages because of C's include file cascade problem. This has probably wasted billions of hours of developer & cpu time through to course of our history.


http://voices.canonical.com/jussi.pakkanen/2012/10/01/building-cc-w...

And then there are all the problems caused by the unsafe code generation. We're so set in our legacy approaches to technology that we've become the biggest impediment to improving things for the future. This seems to be a cross-disciplinary problem: programming languages, ipv4/ipv6, 1500 MTU. This resistance to engineering upgrades puts us decades behind where we ought to be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still no ISO.
by cb88 on Tue 3rd Jan 2017 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still no ISO."
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

Linking GCC 4.x+ on a 50Mhz 128MB SparcStation LX... X.x It takes 10s of hours and probably will fail. Bear in mind the microsparc is alot wimpier than the SuperSparcs as well... probably equivalent to a 25Mhz supersparc.

Reply Score: 2