we start to write plug in for eclipse to work with some java frame work like hadoop (we want to edit hadoop eclipse plug in and merge it with other. our plug in must work in Linux operating system. Generally writing plug in for eclipse depend on operating system or not? if depend what benefits to write it for Linux?
Well, the previous answer is correct... in most cases. You should specifically check all the interfaces with the operating system.
SWT is a Java wrapper over native OS widgets. It behaves almost the same on all OSs, but not exactly. There are subtleties. For example, events that might be fired a bit differently, drawing of widgets, etc. My experience shows that you have to check on all OSs to be sure that it works as it should, especially if you are doing more complex UI rendering. In many cases I had to do some fine tuning to get it right. It is not a great deal of effort, but it should be considered.
Another issue is working with the file system. For example, make sure you are composing files paths correctly. It is always a good idea to test that part as well.
Eclipse plugins are platform independent (you are writing them in Java), unless your plugin requires some low-level calls to the operating system (i.e. JNI) or to invoke some tool found only in the Linux OS.
The only part of Eclipse tied - in part - to the OS is the SWT toolkit, since it's optimized for the graphic environment you are running it, but if Eclipse can run in the OS you are interested in, you should not be bothered by this.
Related
I have been programming in java for 3 years but I have no experience with other languages. I want to know what I need to study in order to be able to make an operating system. Am most likely going to make my operating system based on Linux kernel. What programming languages should I be familiar with and what aspects of the pc hardware should I study. if you know any online tutorials or good books please mention them.
The answer depends on how far you want to go and how much you want to write yourself vs using existing code.
The most straightforward way is to have a look at Arch Linux or Gentoo and build your own, custom Linux setup. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~2 hours
You could, otherwise, compile the Linux kernel, build some software packages and put it all together yourself and create your own Linux distro - i.e your own operating system in a sense. Linux From Scratch will be an invaluable resource if this is what you decide to do. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~2-5 days
Say that's too easy for you but you're not ready to delve into the nitty-gritty of kernel development. You can write your own applications that run on top of the Linux kernel. Typically, you'd need to know C/C++ but any language that supports running on Linux/compiling to a Linux executable will work. Heck, you could chuck a (or write your own) Java runtime on and write your whole 'operating system'/user-space in Java. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~6-12 months
What about if you want to get down to programming your own kernel from scratch? Heck, Linux is overrated and you want to write your own kernel and it's going to be the next best thing! You would want to learn a bit about the platform you're developing on. At the very least, you'll need to know the assembly instructions of some special operations for your platform that can't be done natively in C like switching CPU modes. You'll definitely need to read up on the OS dev wiki for this and you should have a fair decent computer science background.
At this point, you shouldn't need too much other than a good tutorial, C, a little assembly, reference manuals for the hardware you're hoping to support and 3+ years of computer science background to get you started. Your boot loader that's booting your kernel should handle most of the hardware initialisation. Bootloaders like GRUB (I'm assuming you're developing on a x86 system) does so much for you that it can probably just jump to your kernel main function straight away without you having to do too much. Again, if you wanted, you could port or write your own Java runtime in C and write the rest of your kernel in Java! Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: ~3-5 years
But, let's just say you're screaming for more pain and you want to write an operating system really from scratch and you don't want no bootloader doing a lot of the legwork. What do you need? Firstly, you'll need a lot more reference manuals. And you'll need to read up on a lot more assembly. Especially for Intel processors, there's a lot of work involved bringing the system up from 16bit mode to 32/64bit protected mode with paging (which is what I assume you want). You'll also want to know about every tiny quirk and weirdness of your platform that will affect your OS (these are often not documented; hooray!). Plus, all of the above. In short, you will need to study everything. Approximate time needed to create a minimal working system: 5+ years
Of course, this post is just scraping the surface of what is needed to even bring up a basic operating system capable of say, opening a web browser. The approximates roughly assumes a minimal working system is something capable of running a graphical web browser and will vary depending on how much you want to write.
I don't mean to be condescending but this is the kind of reality you'll be facing if you decide to write your own operating system. Nevertheless, it is a valuable learning experience if you can break the initial barrier or even just trying to set up your own Linux system.
First, I would say that you install any Linux OS on your system and get accustomed with it.
Second, for OS development you have to know C language. As for the Assembly language, it depends from where you start the OS development. If you will be using available bootloaders, then I don't think that you will be requiring to learn assembly language.
This is a website on OS development: http://wiki.osdev.org/Main_Page
There you will find all the stuff you need to know for the OS development. And also how to develop OS step-by-step.
Now-a-days, a "Eudyptula Challenge" is going on. It is a series of programming exercise for the linux kernel. You can find more info here: http://eudyptula-challenge.org/
As a personal learning project, I want to port an existing x86 emulator library to JavaScript and then run a very simple operating system on top of it.
My only requirement for the library is that it should be written in C\C++, as I want to use emscripten and asm.js to compile the source files to JavaScript. The library should at least be able to interpret x86 opcodes; the specific environment details for JavaScript (memory, GUI, interrupts etc.) I can implement myself. The operating system doesn't have any requirement, as long as it is simple enough and can run on the emulator.
So far in my research, Softx86 seems like the most viable solution, as it seems simple enough to port to JavaScript (it only does CPU emulation). The simplest 16 bit real-mode operating system I can find is MikeOS, the only problem being that it requires a 386 processor, which Softx86 cannot emulate and I am not sure if they are completely compatible.
My question is if anyone knows an alternate combination of emulator-OS that is simple enough to be ported to JavaScript.
For anyone who will come across this thread in the future, I've decided to port Fake86 to JavaScript, and use MS-DOS as the operating system.
You can see a live demo here
It runs very, very slowly, and currently only runs on Firefox, but it works nonetheless.
You can see the full source code here
I want to get into OS development. However, I'm not interested in all the quirks with the x86 architecture. I'm interested in the design of the OS.
So I looked around for an (x86, or x86_64 would be even better) OS toolkit. Something that deals with switching to protected mode and configuring interrupts through simple C function calls.
The only thing that I was able to find was this toolkit that hasn't been touched since 2002. Before I get started with my OS, I wanted to make sure that there isn't a more recent/better toolkit to aid in OS development (for x86 or x86-64). So, is there a better toolkit than this, and if I use these kinds of toolkits, what kinds of problems might I encounter along the road (that I wouldn't have run into had I done all the gritty work myself)?
There are no (good) OS toolkits; and I'm not sure a good OS toolkit would make any practical sense (e.g. it'd need to cover all possible OS designs rather than just one, and would be more complex than any single OS could ever be).
The good news is that you probably don't need a toolkit anyway. If you aren't planning to write your own boot code (e.g start with GRUB), then the amount of assembly you need isn't very much and most of it can be taken from elsewhere fairly easily (e.g. http://wiki.osdev.org/Inline_Assembly/Examples).
I probably shouldn't tell you the bad news; but a scheduler is a small part of a kernel, and a kernel is a small part of an OS. For example, a scheduler might be 2000 lines of code, but Linux is about 50 million lines of code, and if you add stuff like Apache, X, Gnome/KDE, Mozilla, etc on top of that then you can imagine how much potential for "gritty work" might be involved in an entire OS... :-)
What are the disadvantages of the Tk module compared to other solutions to create a GUI in Perl?
I toured the various gui modules for Perl recently, and here is my summary (disclaimer: ultimately I found that none of the existing modules met my needs so I started writing my own gui toolkit).
Tk - Decent to work with and the interface is very perlish. The gui itself is a bit dated looking, and doesnt take advantage of any of the operating system's native widgets (like filepickers). On most systems it will require a C compiler to install.
Wx - Difficult to work with, un-perlish interface. Large programs almost require a gui builder to keep track of everything. Support for os level widgets is mixed. Nicer looking than Tk IMO. Compilation is involved, requires installing several libraries, can be difficult to get running on windows. The assembly of programs is very procedural, and does not map cleanly to what the program will actually look like.
Qt - last I looked this module was more or less abandoned and only supports Qt3. I didn't try to install it, but i imagine it needs a compiler.
Prima - Similar to Tk it has a dated appearance. Requires a compiler.
W32::GUI - I ruled this out early since it is not cross platform.
XUL::Node / POE::XUL::Node - rather heavy dependency tree that includes C code. Seems unmaintained and I had mixed experiences getting it to install. Windows was a no go, OSX was a no go, it had limited functionality on OpenSUSE. It also only supports a subset of the XUL language.
I found that none of the existing gui toolkits made it easy enough to distribute your application to end users. It is ok to expect programmers to jump through the hoops of resolving library dependencies and compiling code, but end users aren't going to do that. So the first requirement I had was to be pure Perl.
Secondly, nearly all of the existing gui toolkits force you to work in a very procedural manner: Create a container. Create a packer for the container. Create an object. Set properties on that object. Add the object to the packer. Run the packer to fill the container object. Repeat.
Instead, I find that nested design (like HTML) is easier to follow for two reasons. First off, since objects are nested, there is no need to name everything (label_456, label_457...). Secondly, the structure of the program mirrors the structure of what is displayed.
So I started work on XUL::Gui, and its been coming along rather well. It is pure Perl, and only depends on core modules for ease of installation. It has one external requirement, which is that a recent (3+) copy of Firefox is installed. It uses the familiar design pattern of web development with nested tags styled with CSS. It is certainly at a level where you could write fully featured single window applications with it.
Hopefully this helps you to figure out which toolkit is best for your project.
Tk has not been developed in a very long time. ActiveState now recommends development with their Tkx toolkit, which provides a thin layer over TclTk. It means that themed widgets are possible. But, TclTk is still quite primitive compared with many other GUI toolkits.
I haven't tried XUL:Gui but it seems the way to go.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am planning to develop an operating system for the x86 architecture.
What options of programming languages do I have?
What types of compilers are there available, preferably on a Windows environment?
Are there any good sources that will help me learn more about operating system development?
Is it better to test my operating system on a Virtual Machine or on physical hardware?
Any suggestions?
For my final year project in collage I developed a small x86 OS with a virtual memory manager, a virtual file system and fully preemptive multitasking. I made it open source and the code is heavily commented, check out its source forge page at:
https://github.com/stephenfewer/NoNameOS
From my experience I can recommend the following:
You will need x86 assembly language for various parts, this in unavoidable, but can be kept to a minimum. Fairly quickly you will get running C code, which is a proven choice for OS development. Once you have some sort of memory manager available you can go into C++ if you like (you need some kind of memory manager for things like new and delete).
No matter what language you choose you will still need assembly & C to bring a system from boot where the BIOS leaves you into any useable form.
Ultimately, the primary language you choose will depend on the type of OS you want to develop.
My development environment was the Windows port of the GNU development tools DJGPP along with the NASM assembler. For my IDE I used IBM's Eclipse with the CDT plugin which provides a C/C++ development environment within Eclipse.
For testing I recommend BOCHS, an open source x86 PC emulator. It lets you boot up your OS quickly which is great for testing and can be integrated into eclipse so you can build and run your OS at the push of a button. I would also recommend using both VMWare and a physical PC occasionally as you can pick up on some subtle bugs that way.
P.S. OS development is really fun but is very intensive, mine took the best part of 12 months. My advice is to plan well and your design is key! enjoy :)
Language and compiler depend entirely on what you're attempting to accomplish. I would suggest, though, that you might be approaching the problem from too low a level.
There are materials out there on operating system fundamentals. MIT has OpenCourseware on the subject. Read through Andrew Tannenbaum's Operating Systems series, and look at things like Minix.
Get an idea for what's out there. Start tinkering with things. Borrow ideas, and see where they go. You can reinvent the wheel if you really want, but you'll learn more by building on the works of others.
It doesn't really matter, what language you choose. If the language is Turing-complete, then you can write an OS in it.
However, the expressiveness of the language will make certain kinds of designs very easy or very hard to implement. For example, the "liveliness" and dynamism of the old Smalltalk OSs depends on the fact that they are implemented in Smalltalk. You could do that in C, too, but it would probably be so hard that you wouldn't even think about it. JavaScript or Ruby OTOH would probably be a great fit.
Microsoft Research's Singularity is another example. It simply couldn't be implemented in anything other than Sing#, Spec# and C# (or similar languages), because so much of the architecture is dependent on the static type safety and static verifiability of those languages.
One thing to keep in mind: the design space for OSs implemented in C is pretty much fully explored. There's literally thousands of them. In other languages, however, you might actually discover something that nobody has discovered before! There's only about a dozen or so OSs written in Java, about half a dozen in C#, something on the order of two OSs in Haskell, only one in Python and none in Ruby or JavaScript.
Try writing an OS in Erlang or Io, and see how that influences your thinking about Operating Systems!
There is an OS course offered at the University of Maryland that utilizes GeekOS. This is a small, extensively commented OS designed for educational purposes which can be run using the Bochs or QEMU emulators.
For an example of how it is used in a course, check out a previous offering of the course at the class webpage. There, you will find assignments where you have to add different functionality to GeekOS.
Its a great way to get familiar with a small and simple OS that runs on the x86 architecture.
You might want to look up XINU. it's a tiny OS for x86 that isn't really used for anything other than to be dissected by students.
Use ANSI C, and start off with an emulator.
When you port over to a real machine, there will be some assembler code. Context switching and interrupt handling (for instance) is easier to write in assembler.
Andy Tannenbaum has written a good book on OS. Many other good ones exist.
Good luck! There is nothing quite like haveing written your own OS, however small.
Also check out the OSDev.org which have all information you need to get started.
I've done that once for a 386SX, which was on a PCI board. A good source on how to start a X86 cpu in protected mode is the source code of linux. It's just a few assembly statements. After that you can use gcc to compile your C code. The result is objectcode in ELF format. I wrote my own linker, to make a program out of the objectcode. And yes, it worked! Good luck.
Be sure to check out the answers to my question:
How to get started in operating system development
Without a doubt, I'd use Ada. It's the best general-purpose systems-programming language I have come across, bar none. One example, Ada's much better for specifying bit layout of objects in a record than C. Ada also supports overlaying records on specific memory locations. C requires you to play with pointers to acheive the same effect. That works, but is more error-prone. Ada also has language support for interrupts.
Another: Safety. Ada defaults to bound checking array assignments, but allows you to turn it off when you need it. C "defaults" to no bound checking on arrays,so you have to do it yourself manually whenever you want it. Time has shown that this is not the right default. You will forget one where it is needed. Buffer overflow exploits are the single most common security flaw used by crackers. They have whole websites explainng how to find and use them.
As for learning about doing this, the two books I'm aware of are XINU (Unix backwards, nothing to do with Scientology), and Project Oberon. The first was used in my Operating Systems graduate course, and the second was written by Nikalus Wirth, creator of Pascal.
If you are making a full OS, you will need to use a range of languages. I would expect Assembly, C and C++ at the very least.
I would use a Virtual Machine for most of the testing.
C most probably...all major OS-es have been written in C/C++ or Objective-C(Apple)
If you want write an OS then you need a couple of people. A OS can not write a single people. I think it is better to work on existing OS projects
Reactos --> C, Assembler
SharpOS --> C#
JNode --> Java
This is only a short list of OS projects. How you can see there is a project for every possible language.