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.
E-mail Print r 5   · Read More · 13 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 368129
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Repeating the past
by r_tty on Fri 12th Jun 2009 10:54 UTC
Member since:

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?

Reply Score: 3

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

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

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).

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 1