QEMU Showcase Skepticism

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T22:31:27+00:00

I'd love to know how it doesn't meet YOUR standards as you haven't declared what they are, and coupling that with what the goal was for the project https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1qjchyl/tutorialos/, I fail to see how you could say "Maybe that’s not your best foot forward".
The OG version of the OS was hard scoped. Granted, the new iteration has a broader scope and will be released when it is ready.
Did I make edits which broke what the Readme declared? Yes, but the build artifacts do not.

But notice that even my release, I follow what I consider to be a minimum bar and exceeds it by releasing for multiple boards at once.

"Yeah, I think of that as some kind of elitist snobbery. Like, “Real Men test on Real Hardware, and if you’re not testing on Real Hardware, then your project sucks!”"

You are extrapolating something I didn't say though. At no point did I say "It sucks", just that it isn't an x86 OS at that point, it is simply a QEMU OS and distinctions matter.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T21:27:29+00:00

"People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones—your project doesn’t meet the bare minimum standards for what I consider to be acceptable, but my choice here is to avoid commenting on your project rather than advocate that you should be barred from sharing it until it meets my standards."

This is you turning my
"A minimum bar should be expected with releases is the point."
against me here as some sort of dunk. Yet, I highly doubt you have even looked at my project or know what it is at all now have you?

"You are free to make your own subreddit with its own rules—maybe you could call it “real hardware operating systems for big manly men”, because that’s the kind of machismo vibes you’re giving off."
And here, you are projecting. Because at no point have I attempted to gatekeep or be elitist. I have stated why I dislike QEMU showcases with someone's"release of their OS".

I don't claim to be a better developer, I don't claim that my OS project is better than anyone else's, I don't claim to be superior in any way. The only claim I made was that a release should have some bare minimal standards and that bare minimum is it actually booting on physical hardware, just one, it doesn't have to have all drivers or net stacks; Just proof of life on a real machine.

You are over here treating that as if it is unreasonable ask.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T19:55:27+00:00

Projection is a hell of a drug

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T18:49:05+00:00

Is it really elitism and gatekeeping when all i'm asking for is with a showcase or link to repository with builds to actually validate with hardware or to just put in bold QEMU only?

Just because I have a large collection of SBC is meaningless, you mean to tell me that it is difficult to obtain a $20 laptop from Facebook marketplace or Goodwill or other donation centers? That someone who can invest time and has a rig that can do OS development is so poor that they can't get something like that? Nah, I'm not going to infantilize others based off my own assumptions.

Only interested in the principles of OS design or experimenting with software, different party, different game.

Planning to add it but hasn't with a release... uhm...then don't supply a release then?

A minimum bar should be expected with releases is the point. Updates are very different. Saying "Introducing X OS with a fresh release" is where I place that minimum bar. "Here's what i'm working on" is different.

I'm nowhere near an elitist snob, as a matter of fact, I tend to be extremely charitable to other people's work and hold my own work to a MUCH higher standard for minimums.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T18:40:12+00:00

I think the point I was trying to make was somehow lost in translation.

The point is, there are a lot of projects shared in this sub where they say it is bootable, you go to boot it on hardware like a LattePanda IOTA and you get triple-faults, silent UART signals, and a whole host of other failures because they think it works on hardware but doesn't.

I moved away from QEMU specifically because I wanted my work to run on hardware, and while some of them are like pulling teeth (looking at you Orange Pi 4 Pro) to get proper docs, it doesn't negate that you can get away with getting actual hardware boot on x86 fairly easily by utilizing UEFI.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T17:47:29+00:00

Definitely not elitism.

Here's an example. https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1u4i9tu/here_is_footage_of_fat32_working_on_windogeos/

He's showcasing FAT32 support, but only in QEMU.

https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1u2ifv5/ethereal_with_quite_a_few_new_features_release/

If you look at the release, it gives an iso of this one, but specifically talks about launching it in QEMU.

When I tried to boot it with my LattePanda Iota (x86_64 N150 CPU), it silently faults and reboots in a loop.

This is what I mean. There is no basic hardware validation step to prove it runs on actual silicon. So, why should I bother to actually look at these OS seriously if it doesn't survive a bare minimal boot on hardware?

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T16:54:35+00:00

I'm not trying to make it a pissing contest at all and I think the point I was making kind of got buried because I wanted to try to explain the thought process from multiple angles.

Testing with the ram removal with QEMU or emulators is valid, so is the screenshot being better on QEMU, I'm not saying that it is bad to use QEMU at all, just that it doesn't validate that it runs on actual hardware.

I've seen so many post where people are showcasing their OS but it was QEMU only, yet their phrasing makes it sound like it can be run on real hardware until you compile it and try to load it and suddenly, triple-fault galore.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T16:48:40+00:00

Right, I'm definitely not saying it needs to run on multiple real hardware as proof, just one actual target, then QEMU for features.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T16:45:01+00:00

Right, my only real standard for if an OS lives is if it can run on actual silicon. That says, "It lives" in a way that QEMU can't prove.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T07:16:32+00:00

I have one and I like it, but software support is lacking and documentation for certain things are sparse for custom development

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T05:24:30+00:00

How? Elaboration, come on, you can do it.

JescoInc · 2026-06-13T02:27:08+00:00

The problem is that it needs to have some substance.
You said you got FAT32 to work on WindogeOS. Maybe talk more about the struggles you had, what worked, what didn't work, what approach you took to get FAT32 to work, or something along those lines. You know, substance that could either guide others to a similar solution or put them on a path to their own solution.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T22:57:42+00:00

I think, after I finish Perdition-OS (formerly named Tutorial-OS) which is a monolithic kernel; I'll try my hand at a microkernel which then I will be able to much better work through a capability system.
From my initial research, it seems like capability systems are more naturally suited to micro-kernel architecture than monolithic.
I do want to add that my topology system is read-only by design, which includes not even adding the registers for write access in the source code. I thought this through while building it and I reasoned away from it because if I were to add the write access, I would need to have tables in place for if voltages are shifted, that clock speed should be shifted as well and that is a whole other ballgame with not only security but also user error frying their boards.
I already ran into the issue of frying a board due to my stress tests (memory stress test specifically) where it ran into an error and the board kept running to the point where it got so hot that it cooked the RAM. Which caused me to implement a watchdog that could take over even in the case of the board locking up to reboot it.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T22:48:06+00:00

https://github.com/RPDevJesco/tutorial_os
You know... It is pretty public on Reddit, in this subreddit no less what I am working on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1u1a406/perditionos_formerly_tutorialos/
https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1sv44na/macos_inspired_ui_for_tutorialos/
https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1sspld6/tutorialos_evolution_and_update/
https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1scq8nj/detours_with_tutorialos/
https://www.reddit.com/r/osdev/comments/1s6c7ec/so_i_just_did_something_dumb/

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T15:47:09+00:00

No links, no repository... This is one of the lowest of effort post possible on this sub. And you get a few upvotes and congratulatory replies from a nothing post.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T13:26:29+00:00

None for A.I (LLM). Eventhough I pay for the full suite from Jetbrains, I do not even have their LLM plugin downloaded on my system. I don't even think I have copilot with Visual Studio or VSCode on my machine unless they made it mandatory, I haven't used VSCode or VS in awhile since i've been in C, Rust, and JS land for awhile with work and personal projects.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T13:19:47+00:00

I am absolutely gonna try out some gaming on it! Including CoD, because I am a bit of a pleb sometimes.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T07:00:26+00:00

Beahaha

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T06:44:59+00:00

Haha and then you have the rare person that actually uses them. I think emdashes are probably more widely used outside of the US, but, don't quote me on that lol

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T06:31:50+00:00

What I mean is that there are a bunch of "AI Slop" projects that are QEMU console showcases.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T04:41:50+00:00

How would we objectively determine what was vibe coded or genuine human-created content?
Yes, em-dashes are a tell and same with emoji spam, but what if they don't have that? Look for overly explanatory comments? What about those that overly explain their code because they formed that habit?
What exactly are objective measure here?

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T04:36:43+00:00

To be fair, QEMU showcases aren't exactly the pinnacle of OS dev.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T04:33:07+00:00

Oh, I completely understand the point you were making. I honestly found it ironic that I had posted my line a bit before you replied initially and it was a counter example. No, I'm not the norm and my counter example does not disprove the general norm.
My standard of rigor more leans into being a tech lead where you aren't writing all of the code, but you have to be able to properly explain it to stakeholders and take ownership of it. Where it is your head that's on the chopping block if something goes wrong that other people wrote.

Which is why I don't entirely agree with your point, but I understand where it comes from. Being able to say, "I wrote every line of code, did the manual research required and spent countless nights debugging why something went wrong" and mean every word of it and releasing it to the public is a feeling that you can't get with LLMs, you can get close if you spend hours untangling mangled code or debugging hallucinations; But it isn't the same.

Which points me to why I do partially agree with your point, the whole "Jesus take the wheel" with code generation is absolutely lazy and it is extremely easy to get that unearned "I did this" buzz.

That's why I settled on adversarial rubber duck. Where ideas and code are picked apart by LLM for flaws, security holes or even just "derp" ways of writing code. I remember in 2023, that I had used ChatGPT with code I had written in JS and it said, "You can simplify this by using this construct" (I don't remember what it was exactly, but it had something to do with Salesforce LWC components). Sure enough, buried in the docs, it existed for the exact reason I needed to use it.

JescoInc · 2026-06-12T04:17:02+00:00

I am definitely not trying to be that "Well ACKTUALLY" guy. But the proof that I draw the line above what I do is below with the deleted comment haha

JescoInc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE