Reinvent the OS cont

[KimmoK]

Elsewhere I posted about modern (64bit+more) Amiga(like)OS:

>If updating is too hard task to do (as it seems to be, taking lifetimes)...
>Take the loved features and add new ones, compile...

I personally vote for totally new os branch where 3.1API or legacy compatibility is not the key feature. I can always reboot to legacy compatible AOS4 or MorphOS or use 68k via some runinUAE or JanusUAE kind of solution.

I want OS that behaves like AOS (with executive task scheduler), but can address more than 4Gb RAM, use multiple CPU cores and utilize memory protection.

What should be the starting point?
1) OPEN, to gain community support
2) NG API?
3) ?

What should be the priority-HIGH features...
-future proof design
-?

Priority-MED:
-Must it compile to 32bit CPU? IMO: no.
-Must it compile to several 64bit CPU ISA: yes
...

Priority-LOW:
-wrappers and tools to help recompiling PPC and 68k legacy sources
-legacy compatibility sandboxes (perhaps UAE like heavy one and some light version targetting recompiled non-memoryprotected legacy)
-posix/linux sandbox

[KimmoK]

@Thomas Richter
>I then wonder why (or if?) that has to be 68K.

I thought the topic was about Amiga(like)OS in general.

IMO it's futile to "Reinvent the OS" for 68k.

>In how far is this then related to Amiga?

I have experienced 32bit 68k to it's limits.

I would like to see and use next generation Amiga(like)OS as current offerings either A) are not amigalike or  B) they are limited to 31bit+shared memory+one core.

[KimmoK]

@matthey

Yes, I meant the limits of what 68060 offered.

Possible 68k-NG can be better, yes.

(by using busboard/backplane -kind of design to hold GPU+CPU etc, the 68k-NG can be inserted instead of motorolla68k / PPC when/if available one day)

[KimmoK]

The Amiga needs to be put back into the Professional Arena.

That would be very very nice thing.

Some Building blocks:
1) robust HW in production
2) robust, capable OS
3) mainstream level developer tools

1 is easy, 2 and 3 not so.

[KimmoK]

No, not at all. You seem to look at this problem from a perspective as a software engineer, but that's not quite appropriate. Building stable hardware requires stable financing, allowing vendors to verify their products sufficiently.  

Remember the first PPC chipsets from Motorola? Pretty bugged stuff. It's not that you can buy M68K or PPC hardware next door. It's not exactly mass-produced.

Well, I'm pretty sure, with today SoC chips, the HW challenge is anyway easier than the SW.
(for example for a ARM, PPC or x86 product)

About three years ago I saw HW (like the beaglebone) being used professionally by "multibilliondollar" company.

+++
thinking about new slogan .... if a design is not readable in 120x120 pixel avatar area, the design is too complex?
No, actually it just means I have to use DPaint instead.

[KimmoK]

...Carve it down to its minimum, and move anything unnecessary to loadable modules.
It would have lots advantages, but Torvalds doesn't understand this.
And THAT makes me distrust his skill as a software engineer.

At least Torvalds is higher caliber OS talent than Gates. ;-)
(Gates is better in business/making money)

20 years ago I noticed that Torvalds does not think Amiga had proper multitasking when applications can disable task switching as they wish. Sure, it is not ideal, and most likely because Carl S. did not have time to implement other means to handle some things.

Torvalds took advantage of the fast pace of CPU development, not trying to implement a small, fast, responsive and efficient OS. Torvalds succeeded better than anyone else in competing with M$ in generic mainstream systems etc... He was far ahead in 64bit + SMP ++++ vs M$.

If Torvalds had had big box Amiga+RAM+HDD when he was a kid... who knows what had happened...

If we one day have all modern key features in our OS... perhaps Linus might help us with the Linux/posix sandbox build.... :crazy:

+++
It seems Linus is pretty unhappy with the desktop, check "Desktop environment criticism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
(It seems I'm not the only who is unhappy with Linux desktop evolution of past few years...)
++++
I did not know Linus was/is a PowerPC fan!
"In 2008, Torvalds stated that he used the Fedora distribution of Linux because it had fairly good support for the PowerPC processor architecture, which he had favoured at the time."
(or perhaps he just had happened to buy PowerPC apple HW)

[KimmoK]

So, considering Thomas issues, is anyone ready to admit that I might be right and that driver don"t belong inside the kernel....

It has been clear to me always. ;-)

(+modern OSs come with 2Gb of drivers, but not all of them run all the time even when kernel is monolithic, so I personally need to learn how it's done on those monster OSs)

Is there study anywhere how monolithic vs true microkernel perform on modern HW...?
During ancient times monolithic design performed better.


And what if the kernel is able to update itself on the fly like on QNX?
(I suppose it does not change anything vs driver usage.)

++
Just spotted from mzone... it seems Linux kernel has now 20 million codelines:
https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Low-loader-vehicle-yard_DG-imagery_Final.pdf
Now considering that original AmigaOS had only 1million codelines ... WOW.

As an oldschool programmer I tend to think that the more codelines you have, the more bugs you most likely have.
So, in that theory, whole AmigaOS should have less bugs than what just linux kernel has.
Then I imagine ... on linux those 20million codelines are run in kernel space (no mp) vs 1million codelines as total AmigaOS ...

(I know it's not that simple and perhaps there is 15million testing related codelines in linux kernel, .)