A new Amiga OS ??????

[cantido]

dammy wrote:
and it calls init.  From that point on, there isn't much going to be comparable between Linux Distros

So you're going to write a Amiga-ish OS on to of Linux?
You seem to have understood how init is launched but skimmed over the rest of the details about how you intend to replace all the rest of the userland you need which is in no way Amiga like. Me thinks you'll end up with UAE running in a busybox based system.

[cantido]

persia wrote:
OS X moved the Mac environment from it old base to a FreeBSD one.

None of the old Mac OS code is in OSX.

But FreeBSD is still there under the hood.  I can load X Windows and run X Windows based programs in OS X.

Ugh? You could run X Windows applications on AmigaOS if you want to port one of the current implementations or write your own. I fail to see which part of OSX being "based" on some FreeBSD code (Which in turn comes from NetBSD and kin) makes it able to run X11 apps. Cygwin have an X11 implementation for Windows, maybe its based on FreeBSD too?

Does OSX retain the syscall emulation stuff that allows *BSD run commercial Linux binaries? Stuff like that would be *interesting*.
   

a sort of OS 9 in a box until it was no longer needed and then it was removed.

That's called an emulator.

So what you are talking about is a Linux running a cloned Amiga environment on top with an integrated classic (OS 3.9) emulator?

If Amiga-ish features are what people want why bother replacing a perfectly good environment with yet more one-man-band totally unworkable dreams... why not just support the existing projects that are working towards these goals and actually have backing. The mind boggles.

[cantido]

tonyyeb wrote:
@cantido
Why not wait until full details are out.

Anyone that isn't totally deluded knows that this is all hot air. As soon as stuff like "stripping the Linux kernel" is mentioned you know it's going to turn out a pathetic waste of time.

Dammy dislikes Fedora so he and his gang of merry men are going to write an "OS" on top of a kernel that doesn't fit the hole they want to ram it into. I might have taken it a bit more seriously if they said they were going to work on top of L4 or something....

[cantido]

dammy wrote:
Neutrino and Dragonfly were originally considered but the question of hardware support popped up. As Apple proved, if you can hide the unix style ugliness below the GUI, even Macheads can not only use it, but brag about it.

So after all that you're creating a graphical shell? Woooopdedooo! Which begs the question; Why don't you just improve whats already there?

Days of 7MHz 68000, micro kernels made sense. Today's multi core, not too many will be impacted with a slimmed down monolithic kernel.  With todays god like gfx cards, end users demand hardware acceleration for 2D/3D.  The end users have paid for a great gfx card, shouldn't they get the benefit that they paid for?

Actually, on multicore machines a microkernel design would work best.. You also seemed have missed that Windows is microkernel based, OSX uses mach in its layers of "stuff apple bought"... and biggest omission is a pretty major one; Barely any support for graphics hardware comes from the kernel in Linux.

Anubis doesn't have money, contracts, IP, but it does have a burning in the belly for what today's AOS should be. It damn well better squeeze every possible drop of horse power out of it's existing hardware, just like AOS did on the Amiga, with no excuses.  

Give it up. You think you going to do better than the thousands and thousands of active developers the major operating systems, Xorg, KDE, Gnome etc etc have? Maybe you could ebay a reality check.

like minded developers that they can make a difference at the beginning of a OS development.

Any serious developer should see this for the joke it is. God help anyone that thinks that something worth while is going to come from this.

How many Amiga devs left for Linux/BSD?  They now can put their knowledge of both AOS and Linux to work.  Anubis can be found on source forge under

It doesn't matter what platform you develop on anymore, most people use the gnu compilers, the gnu libraries.
It isn't the 1980's anymore, wake up.

[cantido]

persia wrote:
Yep, they want to keep the bad things about the linux kernel (monolithic architecture)

Look at the process tree on a recentish Linux based system and you'll notice a lot of stuff doesn't run inside the kernel where it once did. A great deal of the low level api's are also now available to userland applications via interfacing libraries so it's totally possible to write drivers that run in userland, you can even write file systems within the userland. And almost everything can be built into a loadable module, so the "monolithic" thing isn't a Big Deal(TM).

If they don't like Xorg, they could work on a desktop for DirectFB or something. But pretending to write a Linux based AmigaOS is just plain silly.