Linked by Eli Gottlieb on Thu 30th Nov 2006 17:42 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes On December 28th, 2005 - a day which will live in anonymity - OSNews published an editorial of mine urging hobby and research operating system developers to implement Project UDI, because otherwise we (the small/ non-mainstream/ hobby/research OS community) would always wind up stuck with mutually incompatible sets of drivers for doing the same exact things. I also proclaimed that I would implement UDI for my own operating system kernel. Bad decision.
Permalink for comment 186836
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: why not...
by Vanders on Thu 30th Nov 2006 20:05 UTC in reply to "why not..."
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to admit, it works pretty well for Syllable. You don't have to implement a complete Linux API either; Linux tends to offer a whole bunch of little macros and functions that tend to do very simple things, and you can actually do without a lot of it. You can still make larger structural changes to your kernel and still maintain a fair level of compatibility with the important parts of the Linux API's. Something like a spinlock can only be implemented so many ways, or a set of atomic operations, for example.

Now that's not to say that something like EDI couldn't make things even easier, but I suspect the API's would eventually end up looking pretty similar to existing systems.

Reply Parent Score: 5