Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rochus | Hacker News Reader

What's the difference to e.g. xv6?

There are already so many Unix like operating systems of all sizes written in C (e.g. Minix, xv6, BSD, Darwin, Hurd, Lemon, MentOS, SanOS). If I were to go to such an effort, I would try another language, or even my own (like e.g. Bunnix written in Hare). It is meanwhile more than clear that it can be done in C. But C is not really a good programming language (weird syntax, incomplete type checking, many specification gaps, etc.), so it would actually be more interesting to explore the suitability of other languages for such a task.

View on HN

C has been the standard system language almost since the time of its creation. Teaching that standard is valuable even if we’re in the midst of a change.

As for why, a system designed to be pedantic will necessarily be different from one intending to be production ready.

Why i386 and BIOS? It is simple enough for the purpose of teaching. Inundating a student with modern x86-64, UEFI (where most implementations do not meet standards), and such is not a great idea. People just get overwhelmed and shut down. It may be worthwhile to start with something simpler honestly, like DOS and 8088, or even CP/M and 8080. Working one up through time exposes the individual to simpler things and then progressively more complex things. It is useful.

As a side benefit, teaching people about these older things instructs them on how and why things came to be the way they are which may help create better entrepreneurs.

> even if we’re in the midst of a change.

What change do you refer to?

Concerning C: C has obviously proven itself in countless system and embedded projects of all sizes. Nevertheless, C essentially represents the state of knowledge of the early seventies. Projects like the one discussed would be a good opportunity to test newer languages for their suitability for operating system and embedded development, without the pressure of a commercial project.

> Why i386 and BIOS? It is simple enough for the purpose of teaching.

Agree; that's also one of the reasons operating systems like xv6 dedicated for teaching do so; I'm therefore interested in how Fiwix positions itself in relation to xv6.

C was hardly seen as systems language in 8 and 16 bit home computers, just one more to chose from, as most compute intensive stuff was actually still written in Assembly.

Microcomputers weren't the dominant computer type in the 70s and very early 80s.

And UNIX systems almost nonexistent outside Bell Labs, Stanford, Berkeley and a couple of other lucky universities.

When you write one, you can make those choices however you like.

This target was sufficiently interesting to the people who pursued it. It doesn't have to meet your arbitrary standards.

Unfortunately, your comment neither answers my question nor is it helpful in relation to the other arguments.

Other people's hobbies don't have to align to your priorities.

In other words: https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/043/517/i_d...

I asked out of interest and explained my point of view, imposing neither standards nor priorities. Why are you reacting so hostile to a question?

Isn't it rather your intention to enforce your "standard" for questions and opinions that suit you?

You are asking a question that doesn’t make sense. It seems like to you it does, and to others it sounds like “what does the color blue taste like?” People do stuff for fun. It doesn’t have to be useful. Or it can be useful to them because it isn’t the existing thing. xv6 is great, this is different. It makes different choices and studying the differences can be a good thing. Comparing two different pieces of software written in the same language is sometimes exactly what you want.

The logic of “something similar already exists so don’t bother” is reductive. I am sure 99% of hobbyist software is useless to anyone but the person who wrote it. It still helps people learn and become professionals.

Remember a few weeks ago there was a post here by a high school student detailing building a laptop from scratch. Was that wasted effort because you can just buy a laptop? Was Linux wasted effort? Why does this project offend you so much that you keep commenting on it in such a negative way?

> Comparing two different pieces of software written in the same language is sometimes exactly what you want.

And here we are at my question, which obviously makes sense. So what's the difference to xv6? Why did the author consider it important to implement yet another unix-like system in C? What is the core benefit of this specific kernel? The website doesn't provide an answer.

> that you keep commenting on it in such a negative way?

That is a false accusation. I have not said anything negative about this project.

I think it's a cool project even though I have no interest in downloading and running it, but it's a technological curiosity that might yield some insight of other things.

If you're so hell-bent on knowing what differentiates Fiwix from xv6 why don't you download the projects and compare them? You shouldn't be asking others to do your work for you, or to justify their choices and actions to you.

> You shouldn't be asking others to do your work for you, or to justify their choices and actions to you.

Are you serious? This is HN, so it's reasonable to assume that there are people here (obviously not you) who know the project and can answer questions about it quickly. After all, the project author has even set up a dedicated website and is asking for support for his project. It should be in his and the other project contributors' interest to communicate the advantages of the project to people on their own initiative. I don't consider it my job to analyze the source code to find out for myself. I'm very interested in lean operating systems, especially for embedded SMP systems, but my time is limited.

> Why did the author consider it important to implement yet another unix-like system in C? What is the core benefit of this specific kernel? The website doesn't provide an answer.

The website does answer your questions:

> It is designed and developed mainly as a hobby OS

A hobby is something that someone does for their personal enjoyment; it isn't any more complicated than that.

> It is designed and developed mainly as a hobby OS

That doesn't answer my questions at all; e.g. Linux also started out as a hobby, and yet Linus had a clear position on why he considered his system to be better than e.g. Minix, and why he made certain design decisions. Hobby does not in any way preclude rational, goal-oriented motivation.

> Hobby does not in any way preclude rational, goal-oriented motivation.

And it doesn't imply one, either. Most hobbies are just hobbies, that began as hobbies, and continue to stay hobbies.

Replace programming with any other hobby here -- It would be ridiculous to say, in response to someone showing a hat they they've knit: "Why did you consider it important to knit yet another hat? What is the core benefit of this specific knit hat?"

> It would be ridiculous to say, in response to someone showing a hat they they've knit: "Why did you consider it important to knit yet another hat? What is the core benefit of this specific knit hat?"

Not at all. Knitting has a clearly defined purpose: to make a particular garment with a particular shape and pattern so that you can wear it, give it as a gift or sell it (coincidentally, I have detailed first-hand insider knowledge on this topic). But I don't think we need to continue this discussion because it doesn't bring me any closer to the answers to my questions, and apparently you don't have the answers either.

No, hobbies are done for the enjoyment of the activity itself. That's what the word means. The answer to your questions is likely "there is no advantage" and "because the author thought it was fun"

You are asking questions about things that were never asserted in the first place. "Why did the author consider it important to implement yet another unix-like system in C?" Nobody ever said it was!

If you left it at the initial question this might have been an entirely different thread.

"There are already so many Unix like operating systems of all sizes written in C... If I were to go to such an effort, I would try another language...It is meanwhile more than clear that it can be done in C...so it would actually be more interesting to explore the suitability of other languages for such a task."

Based on your earlier remarks why not say knitters should use different material or needles to make it more interesting? Why do the same pattern over again when so many knitters have probably knit the very same pattern already.

Because the statements above miss the point of what hobby means to most people.

>> and apparently you can't answer the questions either

No one is required to. Not anyone on HN or the hobbyist in question.

This one is just a hobby (won't be big and professional like gnu), after all. ;-)

Most other mentioned are also just hobby kernels; actually also Linux and BSD started that way.

parent is quoting this https://fossbytes.com/linus-torvaldss-famous-email-first-lin...

I hope this newcomer Fiwix doesn't steal too much mindshare away from HURD...

IIRC Fiwix has syscalls compatible with Linux, which could be useful in some cases.

Thanks for the first useful answer so far. Does this mean that Fiwix would allow ELF binaries compiled for Linux to be executed natively in a Fiwix system without emulation? Have you tried this?

I think that is correct, depending on how modern the syscalls used are I guess. I expect it doesn't implement a lot of them. I haven't tried it though.

> since it serves also for educational purposes, the kernel code is kept as simple as possible for the benefit of students and OS enthusiasts

Same as e.g. xv6.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com