Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
So I'm curious about this. I assume the building of operating systems is a monumental task, especially with all the back end stuff that an os involves. I was curious if I wanted to rework the front end of an operating system, but take advantage of existing architecture/backend, what would be the best resources to use? Also, can you guys point to any examples of well designed front ends of operating systems that aren't really mainstream? It seems like everyone uses pretty large well known OS.
Yes, you can. But like you said, it's a huge, huge task. I am not sure of windows or mac, but in Linux you have options to do so. You can download a Kernel from https://www.kernel.org/ and write applications around it.
If your goal is to make applications around the kernel, then look at linux application development resources. Check out linux desktop environments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment#History_and_common_use to see which one is good.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I was reading operating system concepts by Silberschatz and i came across
"Some operating systems include the command interpreter in the kernel"
statement.
I cannot understand how such an arrangement will be implemented. also if you cn give some examples of os which provide such arrangement.
Thank you for taking time to help.
Some operating systems do this, like vxWorks. It's just taking the shell itself, and packing it into the kernel. If you can do something in user space (ie: shell as a user space application), you can do it (with some difficulty) in the kernel. The usual caveats apply, such as not being able to link user space libraries into kernel code, etc.
It's easy, on Linux for example, to write directly to a PTY from a kernel module. You can just as easily get the stdin for a process by hijacking system calls, among other methods. Now you have your I/O mechanisms, and just need a parser to handle all the internal logic.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
A word-processor has most if not all the features of a version control software without the gobbledegook and the complexity. You can set a word-processor to always keep history and probably save as versions every time you save. You could have an online word-processor- if one doesn't exist then it sounds like a great opportunity- with general access to allow multiple users to access it. Git and others are acknowledged to have multiple issues but I can't see a word-processor having big issues so why the preference for version control software?
Word processors, as far as I know, do not track versions of directory structures (trees) of files as a whole... .they only track single files. A version control system treats a "snapshot" of a whole tree of files as a single unit.
Online word processors do not support multiple authors working on the same file independently... instead they assume that multiple authors are collaborating in real time, working on exactly the same thing, which is not the usual workflow for software development.
Word processors do not support the concept of branches, which are a powerful tool for many software development use cases
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have heard good things about Chef, was curious about all of the benefits before I devote time to learning a new tool. Not looking to turn this into opinion thread, looking for a list of additional features it has over makefile/shell script.
Chef, and Ansible/Puppet/Salt too (collectively called CAPS), are all based on the structure of "describe the desired state of the system and the tool will make it happen".
A script or Makefile is generally a procedural system, run this, then run that, etc. That means you need to keep a mental model of system from each step to the next, and if that ever deviates from the real system (ex, a directory you are trying to set the owner of doesn't exist) your script usually breaks.
With some stuff this is easy, like yum/apt-get install as they are internally idempotent, you can run them every time and if the package is already installed, it just does nothing.
CAPS systems take that principle (idempotence) and apply it to all management tasks. This has for the most part resulted in less brittle configuration management as you only need to tell the tool what the end result should look like and it will take care of figuring out the delta from the current state.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a project to do that requires making an operating system. Our aim is to make our own version of Google Glass. The glasses part is easy and we plan to use a Raspberry Pi for the system. However we are not sure how to make an incredibly simple operating system like the one for Google Glass with minimal mouse movements to operate it. Someone please help?
Wow sounds like a cool project. Instead of creating the operating system yourself how about just creating a SHELL.
Which means that you would be using some OS of your choice to Handel all the low level hardware stuff and you shell would tell the Pi what to do and how to do it.
A shell uses a read–eval–print loop (REPL) which is: a simple, interactive computer programming environment. see WIKIPEDIA for more info
I think that would be easier than creating a OS.
If you still wnat to make your own OS then take a look at these links:
PINTOS
Rasberry Pi - OS HOw To
I hope i could help.
Best of luck
Better make it under CreativeCommons....You can still make money through donations -- sure it sounds like you (You's') wanna get rich on something that isacopy of someone elses work and a big co.. no good!
Most important thing isto have atotally different Kernell from Linux, like they distanced themselves from Windows
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to know which want do you prefer for a Dedicated server... Yeah in 2 months I'll get a dedicated server but I don't know which OS to choose.
I use exec command from PHP to run .exe files... (like image converter, video converter) but I'm sure I can find that for Linux too... I don't know Linux very well, but I use Windows every day so maybe it will be easier for me?
Help me choose, please!
Thanks!
Either Linux or Windows is a good choice. Ultimately, though, the choice should come down to you or your sys admins ability to support your choice. The old adage about the TCO being in support is a fact.
Most of the time/cost is spent supporting the hardware/software and that should be the focal point of whatever decision you make. Both OSes are more than capable of running a dedicated server. Choosing an OS that you or your staff has no experience with is a good recipe for disaster and frustration, especially in the short term.