Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Recently I trying to learn Ladder Logic programming for PLCs, but I want to know if there is any IDE to create Ladder programs better that Step7 or cx-programmer? Is there any plugin for Visual Studio or Netbeans that I can use? Finally, is it better to work with PLCs under Linux or Microsoft Windows?
UPDATE 1 : After googling about this, I found out that Ladder programming is not depend on the PLC brand or its model, so I did not mentioned any brand in my question.
What is your goal? In almost all cases, your IDE is dictated by the PLC manufacturer, and your PLC brand is spec'd by the customer when they buy the machine. They spec the PLC because they need to have something that they can go online with for maintenance and troubleshooting. Since the software is proprietary and absurdly expensive, they don't want to get a new software license for every machine in the plant and have to relearn new software, while they are bleeding money of manufacturing downtime.
So if your goal is to enter the industry, you want to find out what plants in country tend to use. In North America it's usually Allen-Bradley a.k.a Rockwell Automation, which is programmed with RSLogix 5000 (edit: the recent versions of RSLogix 5000 have been rebranded as Studio 5000). In Europe, it's typically Seimens, but I have no experience with them.
PLC IDEs are almost always picked hardware first. With some obscure exceptions, you pick the hardware you want to run, and this determines the IDE. The IDEs are all proprietary and unique to each hardware platform. Rockwell Automation alone has three different IDEs to support their hardware lines, all licensed individually and very expensive.
If Omron is the most common in your area, it's a good idea to start with them. Once you get used to one type of PLC, learning more is really easy.
If you don't mind which PLC platform you're using, I really enjoyed my time with RSLogix. They have a free, training-level suite available here:
http://www.ab.com/linked/programmablecontrol/plc/micrologix/downloads.html
I prefer RSLogix 5000. It's one of the easiest to work with and has User Defined Types and Add On Instructions to help with reusability.
ABB has Control Builder (which is the product that I work on), AFAIK when somebody buys our AC800 controller they get the CB for free, at least the so called "Compact version" which is file based. The CB has ladder diagrams as well as all other 1131 languages plus some extensions like Function Diagrams.
Disclaimer Sorry if it sounded like an ad, just very passionate with what I work on.
I am primarily a high level language programmer, but have also done development on various PLC /PAC platforms, including Rockwell, Siemens, and Beckhoff.
If your goal is to merely get an introduction to ladder, nearly anything will due. You can download Beckhoffs TwinCAT software for free. It is only a 30-day license, but you can just continually reinstall every 30 days without issue. The great part of TwinCAT is that it runs on a Windows PC, so you can develop and test code directly on the PC and don't need actual Beckhoff hardware to play with. The ladder is a bit quirky, but the statement list portion is by far one of the more powerful. If you are a C-programmer you will feel very comfortable with Beckhoff, because they have duplicated a lot of C-like functions (e.g. memcpy and setcpy) into their libraries.
The Beckhoff platform is not all that widespread, but it would allow you to learn the principals of ladder and PLC/PAC programming.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I want to create a third-party plug-in for Serato (a software for DJs).
I searched in their site and I saw that Serato supports VST (VST2) plug-ins. So my question now is what should I read in order to create a VST plug-in?
Thank you in advance.
A good starting point would be the wikipedia site for VSTs, just to get the basics if you are not familiar with this technology, first you need to know the creators of the VSTs: Steinberg.
VST SDK is a set of C++ classes based around an underlying C API. The
SDK can be downloaded from their website.
Therefore I would recommend starting with something simple. Let’s review a few options:
JUCE
This technology is trending for a few reasons, like their homepage says:
With support for PC, Mac and Linux, JUCE is the perfect tool for
building powerful and complex applications. JUCE also supports the
development of plug-ins: VST, AU and AAX. Run your desktop
applications on mobile! One-click deployment to Android and iOS
(requires Android Studio and XCode) Adjust the user interface of your
application with the Projucer live coding engine Use the best audio
performance available on iOS and Android.
So the pros of this technology are the big community, multi-platform and that is free, at least for non-commercial developments (then if you want to sell it you have to pay). The cons would be that you need to have a little more than the basics of C++ to get started, fortunately there are a lot of tutorials on their page, youtube and the internet, the community is growing so if you have issues you can always ask.
SynthEdit and FL SynthMaker
If you don’t want to get into the code that fast you can start practicing with these, as they don’t require programming expertise, or only a few basics.
SynthEdit is a framework and a visual circuit design that allows you
to create your own synths with only drag & drop without programming.
Therefore giving you the flexibility of using your DSP algorithms
inside the modules.
This is cool if you want to start going quickly, this currently has a cost you can check on their official website.
FL SynthMaker, aka Flowstone, comes free with FL studio. It has a straightforward drag-and-drop graphical interface and a wide range of components. You can use it to code modules and DSP in Ruby and comes with loads of examples to get started quickly and its capacity to assist you in creating a prototype within a short time is a plus.
FLowstone is a programming application that is used to create virtual
instruments effects and computer control of external hardware without
the need to write basic code. The instruments and effects you create
in SynthMaker can be used in FL Studio as 'native' plugins and shared
with other FLowstone users.
MAX MSP
Max, also known as Max/MSP/Jitter, is a visual programming language for music and multimedia developed and maintained by San Francisco-based software company Cycling '74. Over its more than thirty-year history, composers, performers, software designers, researchers, and artists have used it to create recordings, performances, and installations.
The Max program is modular, with most routines existing as shared
libraries. An application programming interface (API) allows
third-party development of new routines (named external objects).
Thus, Max has a large user base of programmers unaffiliated with
Cycling '74 who enhance the software with commercial and
non-commercial extensions to the program. Because of this extensible
design, which simultaneously represents both the program's structure
and its graphical user interface (GUI), Max has been described as the
lingua franca for developing interactive music performance software.
SOUL
The SOUL project is creating a new language and infrastructure for
writing and deploying audio code. It aims to unlock improvements in
latency, performance, portability and ease-of-development that aren't
possible with the current mainstream techniques that are being used.
SOUL unlocks native-level speed, even when hosted from slower, safer
languages. The SOUL language makes audio coding more accessible and
less error-prone, enhancing productivity for both beginners and expert
professionals.
Maximilian
Is a cross-platform and multi-target audio synthesis and signal processing library. It was written in C++ and provides bindings to Javascript. It's compatible with native implementations for MacOS, Windows, Linux and iOS systems, and client-side browser-based applications. The main features are:
sample playback, recording and looping
support for WAV and OGG files.
a selection of oscillators and filters enveloping
multichannel mixing for 1, 2, 4 and 8 channel setups controller
mapping functions
effects including delay, distortion, chorus, flanging granular
synthesis, including time and pitch stretching atom synthesis
real-time music information retrieval functions: spectrum analysis,
spectral features, octave analysis, Bark scale analysis, and MFCCs
example projects for Windows and MacOS, using command line and
OpenFrameworks environments
example projects for Firefox and Chromium-based browsers using the
Web Audio API ScriptProcessorNode (deprecated!)
example projects for Chromium-based browsers using the Web Audio API
AudioWorklet (e.g. Chrome, Brave, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi)
Extras
A few months ago I found this community that is focused on audio programming. They also have a Youtube channel with hundreds of tutorials and a discord server where you can ask questions, and even show your projects or even get a job. If you are interested. It’s called the “The audio Programmer”
Hope this helps you get started. I know there are a lot of option out there and this might confuse you at the beginning but I hope this little guide helps you choose a good starting point depending on your needs and goals since every technology offers different things.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I took a class this spring about generic operating system theories and principles, and now I'd like to spend the summer working through Tanenbaum's Operating Systems book, looking through Minix source, and getting a general idea of actual OS implementation.
There are two OS professors at school and I went to them to ask about borrow Tanenbaum's book. Interestingly, one said I should use the older, second version of the book, and focus on Minix 2 because it's overall simpler and has less source to understand (and thus would be easier to learn from without information overload). The other prof said she didn't think this would be a problem, and that I should go with Minix 3 and the newest edition of his book so that I get to see a more modern implementation.
What does Stack Overflow think? Anyone here have experiences with both versions of Minix? I would like to learn the principles of making an actual OS, but I also don't want massive information overload that will keep me from actually understanding what the code as a whole is up to.
I took Minix 2 way. It was understandable and paved way for Minix 3.
About HelenOS - they take unrealistic goals - bug free and formal description. Both are not achievable.
HtH
If you want to go deep into sources of microkernel-based OS I would suggest you to have a look on HelenOS, a newer but still relatively simple operating system not burdened with UNIX semantics and API. Alas, there is no book (as the Tanenbaum) about it yet, but the sources are well documented.
Interesting I just come across this old post so sorry for what seems to be a bump.
When I was at university, sometime ago, we had an operating systems lab we used PC's with Linux for the development and 68000 based machines with boot roms for the testing I believe they were VMS based.
The software environment was either Modula2 (the first and second year language) or C/C++ (second and third year language) everything was cross complied and loaded via script ready for the test machine to be reset to boot the new OS.
Anyway to cut this short, we used some sort of educational framework which was using the Minix2 sources so you could write parts of the OS for a project without having to write the whole lot.
I have been trying to find the official sources and documentation for this environment for sometime, I am sure it's on the web somewhere and possibly updated/maintained.
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 am looking for mostly used 5 Real-Time operating systems. I searched on Google and Wikipedia has a list of RTOSs, but they are in random order and also I am not convinced that all of them really operating real-time.
One more question: can we include Windows 7? When we set priority of 5 tasks, for example to realtime.
Real-time operating systems that I have come in contact with, in order of (subjective) impact:
VxWorks
QNX
eCos
RTLinux
Especially VxWorks has a long history in critical applications - for example, in cars and various NASA space platforms. It is however neither free nor open source software - I would probably prefer eCos or RTLinux in one of my own projects.
This Wikipedia article also has a section with what is supposedly a list of the most deployed RTOS, although its contents are not supported by any references.
That said, if you search around a bit you will find that the most deployed RTOS are usually found in proprietary embedded systems. Many of those actually push the definition of an Operating System quite a bit (e.g. the various exokernel designs out there).
Without more informaton on your use of this list, we cannot provide more information. If you intend to develop RT software, for example, there are far more factors to consider than the popularity of each RTOS. Cost, supported hardware, familiarity with the various interfaces, vendor support for specific applications, quality of the development tools etc. should all be taken into account...
Out of Wikipedia's long list, the names I recognized as "deployed" amongst people I know:
eCos, LynxOS, QNX, RTAI, RTLinux, Symbian OS, VxWorks, Windows CE, MontaVista Linux.
Of these, I'd guess this order: Symbian OS, Windows CE, QNX, MontaVista, RTLinux. But those are my guesses. :)
If you want to include Soft Real-Time systems, Windows 7 and stock Linux might qualify. Depends upon your needs.
VDC do an annual survey of the embedded system market which would no doubt answer your question; you have to pay for the full report, but you can get the executive brief for free if you register.
From other sources:
In 2006 of the commercial RTOS vendors the following led:
VxWorks
XP Embedded
Windows CE
DSP/BIOS
Red Hat Linux
Now, these are from survey responses, and some of these I would not consider Real-Time, so if you weed out the non-real-time OSs, I would say:
VxWorks
Windows CE
DSP/BIOS
QNX
RTX
But survey response is not divided by platform type; what is appropriate to an 8 bit system, or a deeply embedded system with no need for file-systems, networking, or display etc. are very different. And if you have never used a TI DSP, you'd never have even encountered DSP/BIOS before. So the question itself is probably too simplistic to answer, since to get meaningful results you probably have to specify the target platform and application complexity.
The survey also does not consider non-commercial RTOS such as FreeRTOS, RTEMS, and eCOS. These are very worthy of consideration and in some cases of superior quality to some commercial systems. In 2009 for example FreeRTOS was downloaded more than 77500 times, and eCOS has extensive support for file-systems and networking etc. Of course no one can tell how many such RTOSes are used in real products or simply by hobbyists or even downloaded and never used.
Another question is whether you are interested in volume of product or number of distinct projects? For example WidgetA may incorporate say Keil RTX bundled free with its ARM-MDK, and sell in millions, while PABX-Exchange-B, may use VxWorks costing tens of thousands in royalties and development licences, but sell in the few tens. The comparison is pointless.
The choice of the RTOS strongly depends on the application domain. In each application domain (e.g., avionics, automotive, military) there is a leader. Also, because each application domain has different certification rules (e.g., OSEK/AUTOSAR in automotive, DO-178B in avionics, etc.) and some RTOSs have not been certified for all the standards.
In my experience, WindRiver VxWorks is the most used across all application domains.
But I know companies using GreenHills Integrity (avionics), Windows CE 6 (consumer), LynxOS (military) Vector and Erika Enterprise (automotive).
what about Green Hills Integrity - in their eyes they are the No 1 independant RTOS vendor, implying that Wind River is no longer independent as owned by Intel. They also have ENEA as No 2, but this seems based on revenue.
we can also add ERCOS(Embedded Real time control Operating System based on OSEK standad) RTOS in the list. It is widely used in automotive industry but vrutually unknown to many people. Its like an eCos but not an open sorce.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am toying with the idea of creating an completely new operating system and would like to hear what everyone on this forums take is on that? First is it too late are the big boys so entrenched in our lives that we will never be able to switch (wow - what a terrible thought...). But if this is not the case, what should a operating system do for you? What features are the most important? Should all the components be separate installations (in other words - should the base OS really have no user functionality and that gets added on by creating "plug-ins" kind of like a good flexible tool?)
Why do I want to do this... I am more curious about whether there is a demand and I am wondering, since the OSes we use most today (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X (Free BSD)) were actually written more than 20 years ago (and I am being generous - I mean dual and quad cores did not exist back then, buses were much slower, hardware was much more expensive, etc,...), I was just curious with the new technology if we would do anything differently?
I am anxious to read your comments.
To answer the first question: It's never too late. Especially when it comes to niche market segments and stuff like that.
Second though, before you start down the path of creating a new OS, you should understand the kind of undertaking it is: it'd be a massive project.
Is it just a normal programmer "scratch the itch" kind of project? If so, then by all means go ahead -- you might learn alot of things by doing it. But if you're doing it for the resulting product, then you shouldn't start down that path until you've looked at all the current OSes under development (there are alot more than you'd think at first) and figured out what you'd like to change in them.
Quite possibly the effort would be better spent improving/changing an existing open source system. Even for your own experimentation, it may be easier to get the results you want if you start out with something already in development.
First, a little story. In 1992, during the very first Win32 ( what would become the MS Professional Developers Conference ) conference, I had the opportunity to sit with over some lunch with one Mr. Dave Cutler ( Chief Architect of what most folks would now know as Windows NT,Windows 2000, XP, etc. ).
I was at the time working on the Multimedia group at IBM Boca Raton on what some of you might remember, OS/2. Having worked on OS/2 for several years, and recognizing "the writing on the wall" of where OSes were going, I asked him, "Dave, is Windows NT going to take us into the next century or are there other ideas on your mind ?". His answer to me was as follows:
"M...., Windows NT is the last operating system anyone will ever develop from scratch !". Then he looked over at me, took a sip of his beer, and said, "Then again, you could wake up next Saturday after a particularly good night out with your girl, and have a whole new approach for an operating system, that'll put this to shame."
Putting that conversation into context, and given the fact I'm back in college pursuing my Master's degree ( specializing in Operating Systems design ), I'd say there's TONS of room for new operating systems. The thing is to put things into perspective. What are your target goals for this operating system ? What problem space is it attempting to service ?
Putting this all into perspective will give you an indication of whether you're really setting your sights on an achievable goal.
That all being said, I second an earlier commenters note about looking into things like "Singularity" ( the focus of a talk I gave this past spring in one of my classes .... ), or if you really want to "sink your teeth into" an OS in its infancy....look at "ReactOS".
Then again, WebOSes, like gOS, and the like, are probably where we're headed over the next decade or so. Or then again, someone particularly bright could wake up after a particularly fruitful evening with their lady or guy friend, and have the "next big idea" in operating systems.
Why build the OS directly on a physical machine? You'll just be mucking around in assembly language ;). Sure, that's fun, but why not tackle an OS for a VM?
Say an OS that runs on the Java/.NET/Parrot (you name it) VM, that can easily be passed around over the net and can run a bunch of software.
What would it include?
Some way to store data (traditional FS won't cut it)
A model for processes / threads (or just hijack the stuff provided by the VM?)
Tools for interacting with these processes etc.
So, build a simple Platform that can be executed on a widely used virtual machine. Put in some cool functionality for a specific niche (cloud computing?). Go!
For more information on the micro- versus monolithic kernel, look up Linus' 'discussion' with Andrew Tanenbaum.
I would highly suggest looking at an early version on linux(0.01) to at least get your feet wet. You're going to mucking about with assembly and very obscure low-level stuff to even get started (especially getting into protected mode, multi-tasking, etc). And yes, it's probably true that the "big boys" already have the market cornered. I'm not telling you NOT to do it, but maybe doing some work on the linux kernel would be a better stepping stone.
Check out Cosmos and Singularity, these represent what I want from a futuristic operating system ;-)
Edit :
SharpOS is another managed OS effort. Suggested by yshuditelu
An OS should have no user functionality at all. User functionality should be added by separate projects, which does not at all mean that the projects should not work together!
If you are interested in user functionality maybe you should look into participating in existing Desktop Environment projects such as GNOME, KDE or something.
If you are interested in kernel-level functionality, either try hacking on a BSD derivate or on Linux, or try creating your own system -- but don't think too much about the user functionality then. Getting the core of an operating system right is hard and will take a long time -- wanting to reinvent everything does not make much sense and will get you nowhere.
You might want to join an existing OS implementation project first, or at least look at what other people have implemented.
For example AROS has been some 10 or more years in the making as a hobby OS, and is now quite usable in many ways.
Or how about something more niche? Check out Symbios, which is a fully multitasking desktop (in the style of Windows) operating system - for 4MHz Z80 CPUs (Amstrad CPC, MSX). Maybe you would want to write something like this, which is far less of a bite than a full next-generation operating system.
Bottom line...focus on your goals and even more importantly the goals of others...help to meet those needs. Never start with just technology.
I'd recommend against creating your own Operating System. (My own geeky interruption...Look into Cloud Computing and Amazon EC2)
I totally agree that it would first help by defining what your goals are. I am a big fan of User Experiences and thinking of not only your own goals but the goals of your audience/users/others. Once you have those goals, then move to the next step of how to meet it.
Now days what is an Operation System any way? kernal, Operating System, Virtual Server Instance, Linux, Windows Server, Windows Home, Ubuntu, AIX, zSeries OS/390, et al. I guess this is a good definition of OS... Wikipedia
I like Sun's slogan "the Network is the computer" also...but their company has really fallen in the past decade.
On that note of the Network is the computer... again, I highly recommend, checking out Amazon EC2 and more generally cloud computing.
I think that building a new OS from scratch to resemble the current OSes on the market is a waste of time. Instead, you should think about what Operating System will be like 10-20 years from now. My intuition is that they will be so different as to render them mostly unrecognizable by today's standards. Think of frameworks such as Facebook (gasp!) for models of how future OSes will operate.
I think you're right about our current operating systems being old. Someone said that all operating systems suck. And yes, don't we have problems with them? Call it BSOD, Sad Mac or a Kernel Panic. Our filesystems fail, there are security and reliability problems.
Microsoft pursued interesting approach with its Singularity kernel. It isolates processes in software, using a virtual machine similar to .NET, and formal verification methods. Basically all IPC seems to be formally specified and verified, even before a program is ran.
But there's another problem with it - Singularity is only a kernel. You can't run application not designed for it on it. This is a huge penalty, making eventual transition (Singularity is not public) quite hard. If you manage to produce something of similar technical advantages, but with a real transition plan (think about IPv4->IPv6 problems, or how Windows got so much market share on desktop), that could be huge!
But starting small is not a bad choice either. Linux started just like this, and there are many cases when it leads to better design. Small is beautiful. Easier to change. Easier to grow. Anyway, good luck!
checkout singularity project,
do something revolutionary
I've always wanted an operating system that was basically nothing but a fresh slate. It would have built in plugin support which allow you to build the user interface, applications, whatever you want.
This system would work much like a Lua sandbox to a game would work, minus the limitations. You could build a plugin or module system that would have access to a variety of subsystems that you would use. For example, if you were to write a web browser application, you would need to load the networking library and use that within your plugin script. Need 'security' ? Load the library.
The difference between this and Linux is that, Linux is an operating system but has a windows manager that runs over top of it. In this theoretical operating system, you would be able to implement the generic "look" and "feel" of a variety of windows within the plugin system, or could you create a custom interface.
The difference between this and Windows is that its fully customizable, and by fully I mean if you wanted to not implement any cryptography at all, you can do that, or if you wanted to customize an already existing window, you can do that. Nothing is closed to you.
In this theoretical operating system, there is an OS with a plugin system. The plugin system uses a simple and powerful language.
If you're asking what I'd like to see in an operating system, I can give you a list. I am just getting into programming so I'm not sure if any of this is possible, but I can give you my ideas.
I'd like to see a developed operating system (besides the main ones) in which it ISN'T a pain to get the wireless card to work. That is my #1 pet peeve with most of the ones I've tried out.
It would be cool to see an operating system designed by a programmer for other programmers. Have it so you can run programs for all different operating systems. I don't know if that's possible without having a copy of windows and OSX but it would be really damn cool if I could check the compatablity of programs I write with all operating systems.
You could also consider going with MINIX which is a good starting point.
To the originator of this forum, my hats off to you sir for daring to think in much bolder and idealistic terms regarding the IT industry. First and foremost, Your questions are precisely the kind you would think should engage a much broader audience given the flourishing Computer Sciences all over the globe & the openness taught to us by the Revolutionary Linux OS, which has only begun to win the hearts and minds of so many out there by way of strengthing its user-friendly interface. So kudos on pushing the envelope.
If I'm following correctly, you are supposing that given the fruits of our labor thus far, the development of further hardware & Software concoctions could or at least should be less conventional. The implication, of course, is that any new development would reach its goal faster than what is typical. The prospect, however, of an entirely new OS system #this time would be challenging - to say the least - only because there is so much friction out there already between Linux & Windows. It is really a battle between open source & the proprietary ideologies. Bart Roozendaal in a comment above proves my point nicely. Forget the idea of innovation and whatever possibilities may come from a much more contemporary based Operating System, for such things are secondary. What he is asking essentially is, are you going to be on the side of profit or no? He gives his position away easily here. As you know, Windows is notorious for its monopolistic approach regarding new markets, software, and other technology. It has maintained a deathgrip on its hegemony since its existence and sadly the windows os is racked with endless bugs & backdoors.
Again, I applaud you for your taking a road less travelled and hopefully forgeing ahead and not becoming discouraged. Personally, I'd like to see another OS out there...one much more contemporary.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm planning to write an operating system and I don't know very much about operating systems. Are there any good resources or books to read in order for me to learn? What are your recommendations?
We used Andrew Tannenbaum's Modern Operating Systems at the university I attended. I highly recommend it for it's clear explanations of the tradeoffs inherent in many of the design decisions that you'll run up against. This book is a little bit more "fair and balanced" than the Minix book.
I also recommend this book because, despite his net-famous flame war with Linus Torvalds, few of his biases come through in the book. Also, he's a pretty decent writer, and the book is actually entertaining.
Operating Systems Implementation Prentice Software
This book is written by Tanenbaum, the main guy behind Minix, which is what Linux was based on. It provides good overviews for basic OS concepts like memory management, file systems, processes, etc. The concepts in this book book are intimately tied to examples of the Minix OS, which is a good thing.
I think you should start by something like that.
Similar threads on this very site:
OS Development
Building a new operating system
How to get started in operating system development
Operating System Concepts is the book we used at University. It's quite ugly BUT the information inside are well explain (from basic memory management, to how to OS decide what to execute or how to avoid deadlock). Pretty wide.
Os dev website is rich in information if you want to start coding your own OS too,
While old, these books are very good:
Operating System Design with Xinu
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51AVJFBS3EL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_AA219_PIsitb-sticker-dp-arrow,TopRight,-24,-23_SH20_OU01_.jpg
Operating System Design-Internetworking With XINU, Vol. II
3: http://Operating System Design-Internetworking With XINU, Vol. II
Take a look at HelenOS, which is a from scratch microkernel based OS that aims to be a fully modern OS. Disclamer, I'm a contributor, I'm working on its shell from scratch.
HelenOS has been ported to ia32/64, SPARC, ARM and more, its very well designed and easy to read. Its still in its infancy but shows one possible design that really takes advantage of the microkernel design and solves many issues in a microkernel implementation (such as IPC).
It also includes scripts that automatically set up a proper tool chain needed for cross compiling. Its very easy to build and runs very well in most simulators (i.e. QEMU) or bare metal.
I would also study L4, Minix3 and the GNU HURD (based on Mach), the latter being an illustration of design pitfalls when trying to leverage a microkernel.
If you want to go the monolithic route, just study Linux.
I'd highly recommend taking a look at the MIT Operating Systems class. It's got lots of useful references, and a bunch of lab exercises which you can play around with (including automated grading scripts, so you don't have to be an MIT student to do them).
textbook http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/411E3CQQYZL._SS500_.jpg
I used Operating Systems and Middleware: Supporting Controlled Interaction when I was in college. It is probably one of the best textbooks on the subject.
Operating Systems Design and Implementation
The design and implementation of the FreeBSD OS
Just off the top of my head.
Developing Your Own 32-Bit Operating System by Richard A. Burgess. Went into great details about boot loaders, setting up those strange memory and process management registers, etc. It was a great read back in 1996 when i thought i'd take a crack at writing a simple OS from scratch, but may be dated by now, dealing only with the first few generations of Pentium-class CPUs.
If I remember correctly, the Powerup to Bash Prompt HOWTO contained a lot of information that looked like it would be useful for this. So did older versions of the Linux From Scratch HOWTO, but in recent versions that has been removed.
You'll also find a lot of good information in Understanding the Linux Kernel.
I would recommend looking at embedded operating systems and building an embedded OS. It will deal with the core concepts without the overhead of a modern desktop CPU.
I wrote a multitasking embedded OS last spring as a final project, it's easier than you might think.
You should look into MINIX 3. This is an operating system that was written in, I believe, less than 10,000 lines. You can get a very good idea of how an OS works with the aid of one of Tanenbaum's books and understanding how MINIX 3 works. You could go straight to Linux, but I think this is a useful task and really helps you see how it really doesn't take that many lines to build a working OS.
http://www.minix3.org/
Apart from books, there are many sites that learn OS Development
BrokenThorn Entertainment is on of this website that learn OS dev from base