[Coco] Possible OS-9 Project

Wed Oct 15 01:00:01 EDT 2003

I like the idea.  It never hurts to dream.  Who knows?

My one thought on this is, if it were to become a reality, 
I would like to see it more "controlled" like the BSD 
flavors and not like Linux.  Just to give you an idea of 
how many other PC operating systems are out there, check 
out this URL:

http://www.freebyte.com/operatingsystems/#otherfree

The problem with most of these, is that they are usually a 
one or two person project that never gets off the ground, 
and politics has a lot to due with that.

If NitrOS-9 were to branch out, it would be nice to see a 
varient for the HC11, HC12 for use in robotics, but that's 
an  even bigger dream (could turn into a nightmare)  

Jim

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:47:44 -0500
  James Ross <jr at webross.com> wrote:
>As stated in my bio, I have wanted to contribute 
>something to the CoCo
>community for quite a while.  I've been throwing around 
>an idea for
>some time, that's not really a new idea. Actually, since 
>around the
>time of a thread in bit.listserv.coco "The future of 
>OS-9" last year.
>
>The thread was about an open sourced OS-9 clone.  From 
>what I
>understand,  we have that today in the form of The 
>NitrOS-9 Project.
>Which is very cool by the way.  I am not sure if the code 
>is GPL'd or
>not, but the source was available on SourceForge for 
>quite some time,
>and appears will soon be available on the NitrOS9.org 
>site.  However,
>of course, this is for the CoCo.  In the thread, I made 
>the suggestion
>for an OS-9 clone for the PC platform.  After all, since 
>the CoCo is
>... Oh, no, no, don't say it :)  
>
>I realize that RadiSys offers an OS-9 version for the PC 
>platform
>already.  It used to be called OS-9 / 9000, I don't know 
>if it still
>is.  And that they have a free evaluation CD.  However, I 
>am guessing
>there is a time limit on the evaluation license, and the 
>real license
>costs big bucks? Also, is this version of OS-9 a lot like 
>the OS-9
>versions available for the CoCo from a users standpoint 
>or not?  And
>of course it is closed, proprietary source.  Can't base 
>the next Linux
>competitor on that now can we?  
>
>Also, I am posting this here and not the comp.os.os9 
>because I believe
>that many CoCo enthusiasts, including myself, were just 
>as passionate
>about OS-9 as the CoCo itself.  Therefore, I would 
>appreciate any
>comments you all might have. 
>
>Here is what I envision:  
>
>- A free OS-9 Level I/II (work alike) that runs native in 
>protected
>mode on a Pentium Classic / PCI bus or better machine. 
>
>- It would be an open source GPL'd project.  Hopefully, a 
>community
>project.
>
>- It would be written in 100% Intel Assembly Language. 
> Ok, I know,
>this is heresy, but ... hey, assembly is assembly isn't 
>it?  Anyway,
>when Motorola dropped the 6809 like syntax in the 680x0 
>series, I
>thought that was heresy too! At that point I didn't feel 
>like I needed
>to stay loyal to Motorola anymore :) There will never be 
>an assembly
>language syntax we liked as much as the 6809!
>
>- And here is where is applies to this group.  It would 
>have a binary
>/ emulation compatibility mode that could run original 
>CoCo OS-9 Level
>I/II applications.  Yet the file system, screen, and 
>keyboard calls
>would use the real physical devices and not emulated 
>ones.  Hence,
>you could share the screen and data files amongst native 
>32 bit apps
>and original CoCo OS-9 programs. 
>
>- It would be written in the same spirit that OS-9 was 
>back in '80,
>'82. Small, fast, and efficient. Absolutely no bloat.  It 
>would follow
>the original principles as described in the "History and 
>Design
>Philosophy" paragraph in the System's Programmer's 
>Manual. I think the
>kernel might fit in 256K of RAM / ROM (I know that is a 
>far cry from
>8k but hey!).  
>
>- The design would match that of the System User's Guides 
>and System's
>Programmer's Manual as closely as possible. No more and 
>no less (at
>least for the final first version), but on an Intel, full 
>32bit
>address space.  The only feature not available on the 
>6809 that would
>be added is task memory protection. So that the OS itself 
>or other
>programs would not be clobbered by a rogue app.  Also the 
>ticks could
>probably be 1000 per second instead of 10. 
>
>- A clean room approach would be taken so that no one's 
>copywrite
>would be infringed upon.  I personally have never scoured 
>the OS-9
>code available on SourceForge other than a casual look. 
>If anyone
>participated in this and was very familiar with the OS-9 
>source then
>they would have to abstain from just translating the 
>algorithms. 
>
>- I realize this might be a daunting project to get 
>going.  But once
>past the steep learning curve of protected mode and the 
>tasking model,
>I think it would be fairly easy sailing.  I've counted 88 
>total OS
>calls. (uh-oh, 88 is bad karma! too Intelish!)  29 User 
>calls, 42
>System calls, and 17 I/O calls.  That is somewhat simple 
>compared to
>what, a billion API & DLL calls in Windows.  I am not 
>sure how many
>calls are in UNIX / Linux. 
>
>So there you have it.  So that is what I am thinking 
>about starting.
>Is it worth it?   I am not sure.  It would be fun to try 
>and tinker
>with.  I've longed for a desktop replacement to Windows, 
>other than
>Linux.  This could be the foundation for such an OS.  I 
>am not a big
>Linux fan on the desktop, whole other topic though.  
>
>Better quit dreaming and go to bed!
>
>JR
>
>_______________________________________________
>Coco mailing list
>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco