[Coco] Re: Possible OS-9 Project

[Richard E. Crislip]

Hello James

Heh... sounds good to me, when are ya goin to start? 8-)

On 10/15/2003, James Ross 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
Regards
-- 
Criusing on AutoPilot                       |
        With an Amiga           ---o-o-O-o-o---  and a CoCo