Public Discussions > General Discussion
OS/4 kernel development
walking_x:
--- Quote from: Michael Holzapfel on May 31, 2014, 10:11:38 am ---Please share your thoughts with us...
--- End quote ---
In short - too many strange decisions and features. Too hard to negotiate with current part of team.
* VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT removed (with annoying message ;)) They promise to restore it later in another way, but this can take ages.
* Some things was broken in the recent past (FAT boot, trap screen).
* Alternative CLOCK/SCREEN/OS4APIC drivers... Actually - there is no immediate necessity in them, they just created for "we made it". OS4APIC - use MP table and unusable on many PCs (someone wrote about this here). Why this method was choosen?
* They want remove DOS at all ;)
* They were against release kernel build (without kernel debugger). And now this build is practically untested, because nobody cares of it.
And so on... tired to fight not only with all above, but with many other the same small things. Pasha too, I think ;)
But this is offtopic in this topic, sorry :)
Boris:
--- Quote from: walking_x on May 31, 2014, 11:49:31 am ---
--- Quote from: Michael Holzapfel on May 31, 2014, 10:11:38 am ---Please share your thoughts with us...
--- End quote ---
In short - too many strange decisions and features. Too hard to negotiate with current part of team.
* VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT removed (with annoying message ;)) They promise to restore it later in another way, but this can take ages.
* Some things was broken in the recent past (FAT boot, trap screen).
* Alternative CLOCK/SCREEN/OS4APIC drivers... Actually - there is no immediate necessity in them, they just created for "we made it". OS4APIC - use MP table and unusable on many PCs (someone wrote about this here). Why this method was choosen?
* They want remove DOS at all ;)
* They were against release kernel build (without kernel debugger). And now this build is practically untested, because nobody cares of it.
And so on... tired to fight not only with all above, but with many other the same small things. Pasha too, I think ;)
But this is offtopic in this topic, sorry :)
--- End quote ---
I agree with all these. :-\
But that's what we have, and the current OS/4 is the only evolving OS/2 kernel.
Also I cannot see any drawbacks of writing new clock, screen, apic and psd drivers. The only drawback now is that we have two stacks: ACPI4.SYS with OS4APIC.PSD, and ACPI.PSD. Someone will have to do something with this...
Martin Iturbide:
Sorry, I splitted this topic because I wanted to ask more about it (Plus I wanted to test how to split topics on the forum).
I always thought that Pavel and walking_x were the leaders of this development? Can you tell me which is the team of people behind OS/4 Kernel? Who is involved or leading the development?
Regards
Boris:
--- Quote from: Martin Iturbide on June 02, 2014, 05:00:11 am ---Sorry, I splitted this topic because I wanted to ask more about it (Plus I wanted to test how to split topics on the forum).
I always thought that Pavel and walking_x were the leaders of this development? Can you tell me which is the team of people behind OS/4 Kernel? Who is involved or leading the development?
Regards
--- End quote ---
Currently (since 3771 AFAIR) AlexT and moveton are involved in the "development".
Boris:
--- Quote from: Boris on June 02, 2014, 08:28:49 am ---
--- Quote from: walking_x on May 31, 2014, 05:55:40 am ---And, I think - OS/4 kernel is going into wrong direction now (even if ignore rhis "reverse - engeneering" problem). But, buildable kernel sources still can help in testing and development - in many cases.
--- End quote ---
Also it is really now making good progress, although there are some regressions and bugs, especially in the latest versions. They should and would be fixed.
If I convince Phoenix to produce a stable retail kernel release, for example, each 200 SVN revisions, I'll really look forward to see OS/4 included in Lewis's OS/2 build.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version