From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-09 20:21:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!not-for-mail From: "Michael Garrett" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada OS talk (was: Progress on AdaOS) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:20:33 -0500 Organization: CompuServe Interactive Services Message-ID: <9nhbjd$dcg$1@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com> References: <9n2jcd$b50$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9n3h11$9ic1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9n7vfh$nq6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9n8o51$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9nala6$p3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: chi-tgn-gon-vty160.as.wcom.net X-Trace: suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com 1000092077 13712 216.192.135.160 (10 Sep 2001 03:21:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@compuserve.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Sep 2001 03:21:17 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12964 Date: 2001-09-10T03:21:17+00:00 List-Id: OAR had an Ada version of the RTEMS operating system a while back. I think they have dropped support for it, but I'm sure the source is available from them. This would probably be a good starting point. Michael C. Garrett Marin David Condic wrote in message news:9nala6$p3$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > Well, think about it for a minute. If the initial objective is simply to get > something up and running and you've gone to the effort of building some > micro kernel & scheduler, then about all you need (initially) is some > ability to cause a program to be loaded from some source. You have not even > really got to the point where you have developed any serious device > drivers - just got code cycling in a box - so you're not concerned with > being able to run a sophisticated database app or anything like that yet. > You could dummy-up just enough of a file loader (hiden behind a package > spec) so that down the road, if you build your own file system (or interface > to NTFS, Unix, VMS, or anything else for that matter) you aren't in some > sort of major revision mode on your little core OS. > > To design and build a full-blown file system is a *big* job. Just look at > everything that is in NTFS. Not to mention the fact that as is obvious here, > there are dozens of competing and incompatible strategies for designing one. > If you set as an objective getting a file system in place before releasing > anything, I admire the ambition, but I think it would cause the project to > languish. Obviously, you can go off and build anything you please and I'd be > the last one on the planet to try to stop you. I just think that it is too > ambitious for a first cut. > > My idea for "Phase One" would be to build just enough of an OS to be able > to boot it from a floppy & have a scheduler capable of loading some > pure-machine-code programs and have those programs up and cycling. You need > that much at minimum in order to accomplish anything else. You get the added > advantage that this much of an OS could be useful in embedded applications > where you have no file system, etc. Having a piece that big allows you to > hammer out the kernel and scheduling to get something that would make a > solid base for everything else. > > But if you want to go write a file system - go right ahead. > > MDC > -- > Marin David Condic > Senior Software Engineer > Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com > Enabling the digital revolution > e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com > Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ > > > "David Starner" wrote in message > news:9n8o51$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu... > > > > Why would writing the code for some existing file system and the code to > > make that system look like you want be any easier then writing some > > simple file system that actually fits what you're trying to do? > > > > >