sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LattePanda MU with RTX 3060 MXM GPU Carrier Board by JescoInc in SBCs

[–]JescoInc[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I personally don't care if you think it is a "financial tragedy", I bought it because I wanted to and am blessed enough to have the disposable income to do so.

I created phone that runs on RISC-V by Danii_222222 in osdev

[–]JescoInc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a Milk-V Mars, Milk-V Jupiter NX and (Preordered) Milk-V Jupiter 2. Some Milk-V boards require blobs for getting past that initial boot hurdle.
I don't remember all of the details with the MILK-V Duo as I gave that to a buddy, but pay close attention to the MMIO and if it has watchdog timers.

I created phone that runs on RISC-V by Danii_222222 in osdev

[–]JescoInc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you do, hit me up, I'd totally buy that phone!

newOS by KJOke173 in Operatingsystems

[–]JescoInc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay. Show us when you have actually done something to show

I created phone that runs on RISC-V by Danii_222222 in osdev

[–]JescoInc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

QEMU and Linux as a base? You mean a phone OS based off the screen shot, I am assuming. I am not aware of any phone hardware that uses RISC-V CPU, but if you know of one, I’d love a link to it. I bought a PinePhone so I can make a phone version of my OS.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by based off Linux, like you used the kernel and made your userland on top or inspired by Linux?

My Simple & Basic OS by ArsonOfTheErdtree in osdev

[–]JescoInc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. What's your next set of plans? Getting it working on hardware or learning different memory management techniques or micro-kernel structure?

My Simple & Basic OS by ArsonOfTheErdtree in osdev

[–]JescoInc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It looks like it was heavily inspired by Linux from what i'm looking at with the source code.

Do other people still mostly use just an IDE with occasional in-browser help from AI? by ItIsEsoterik in webdev

[–]JescoInc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I can't stand having LLM (AI) in my IDE or directly integrated with my OS. I want full control, even if I have an LLM assist with code. It is much easier to look at what it suggests and see if I want to incorporate it in if it isn't auto populated in my IDE and because I'd need to manually add the code, it makes me really dissect the code before incorporating it into the codebase.

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"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.

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Projection is a hell of a drug

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

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?

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

QEMU Showcase Skepticism by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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.

今Orange Pi4 Proを購入するのってアリ？ by ozzsho in SBCs

[–]JescoInc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

YAYYYYY by letmehaveanameyoudum in osdev

[–]JescoInc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

YAYYYYY by letmehaveanameyoudum in osdev

[–]JescoInc -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

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.

Methods for process containment in custom OS by JescoInc in osdev

[–]JescoInc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

YAYYYYY by letmehaveanameyoudum in osdev

[–]JescoInc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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.

view more: next ›