×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Cosmo' — a C#-Based Operating System

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the because-they-want-to-that's-why dept.

Open Source 406

Billly Gates writes "A new operating system called Cosmo has been developed, written entirely in C#. It shows the naysayers you can write a full OS kernel without C. So far, you need Visual Studio to compile and run it, as Mono is not supported. However, the source code can be compiled with the Express editions of Visual Studio. The project plans to add VB.NET support soon."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

406 comments

but... (-1, Offtopic)

David89 (2022710) | more than 2 years ago | (#37309986)

does it run Linux?

Re:but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310018)

Does IL run linux?

Re:but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310066)

does it run Linux?

Ha ha ha. This is why I come back to Slashdot time and time again. Fresh, witty jokes of this caliber.

Re:but... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310092)

Look, if you had been the military dictator of a country for 40 years, and STILL UNABLE to get promoted above the rank of colonel, you'd do some bad things too, purely out of frustration.

Full Kernel without C* (0)

Pete Venkman (1659965) | more than 2 years ago | (#37309992)

*Visual Studio required

Re:Full Kernel without C* (1)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310132)

It's only required because those developing Mono can't be arsed to make their implementation up-to-date.

Re:Full Kernel without C* (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310276)

s/can't be arsed/don't have the resources.

Given that Microsoft keeps adding stuff to C# and .NET, and that they aren't exactly contributing to Mono, it's not really surprising that things are the way they are. It may technically be better than Wine, especially if you explicitly target Mono, but that's essentially what we're dealing with here.

Re:Full Kernel without C* (0)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310332)

But wasn't open source supposed to solve that? You know, anyone can contribute and so on.. or are you saying that proprietary software development model works better in some situations?

Re:Full Kernel without C* (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310356)

Microsoft have the advantage that they know what's going to be in C# and .Net way before Mono and they can design their features based on what's easiest for them to implement on Windows starting from their .Net implementation, whereas Mono has to play catch-up...

Re:Full Kernel without C* (0, Troll)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310480)

More specifically, Microsoft can wait for any design decision that Mono does differently from them, work out the implications of that design decision; add something big, related to that design decision so that the design decision is committed then add something which is compatible with Microsoft's design decision but opposed to Mono's decision. The fact that Mono succeeds at all in copying much of .Net and in not ceasing to exist, even when it's parent company, Novell, is bought out is a real sigh of the strength of the open source methodology.

Re:Full Kernel without C* (2)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310368)

If you're going to replicate an existing project you're always going to be behind it, whether you follow an open or closed development model.

Now, Mono could (and does [wikipedia.org] ) add functionality MS doesn't offer, creating exactly the same situation in the opposite direction, assuming the Mono additions become desirable enough that MS would want to keep parity.

Re:Full Kernel without C* (0)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310352)

But Mono is 100% compatible with .NET, Miguel de Icaza told me so! /troll

See, Mono is mostly a wasted effort. I mean I can see the need for an OSS C# compiler runtime, but it is always going to be an uphill battle.

Re:Full Kernel without C* (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310396)

This is actually very insightful. First let me applaud this very important beginning step.

The goal is for the end-user to be able to port their apps and data to a new architecture. We have known that this is required for continuous IT operations over transformative tech innovations since at least the 1970s.

To achieve the end user must be able to cross-compile the OS, compiler and tools to the new target platform. And when the target is booted, the apps compiled and the data ported over, the end user must be in a position to do it again.

Anything less than this is a trap that relies on others to provide the ability to adapt to change of underlying hardware.

End users don't have to actually use this facility. But it must be present and proven to avoid the trap of dependence on the ability and benevolence of others.

Old news (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310008)

There haven't been any updates to the site in many months. Dead links left and right.

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310318)

Yeah, its not exactly new...the Code Project page for it is dated ~ a year ago, but it is active. Dead links??? with the exception of the screen shots I saw no dead links. Not to left or right.

C# IS AN ABOMINATION !! SO SAYS THE BIBLE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310014)

And it would know !!

It's a trap !!

You know it !!

I know it !!

We all know it !!

Put that in a ToString() and drink it all up !!

Can't even get the name right (4, Informative)

Pete Venkman (1659965) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310024)

The project is called Cosmos.

Re:Can't even get the name right (2, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310050)

Just when you thought Slashdot couldn't get any worse.

Sorry, Venkman, I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.

Failure (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310156)

This article is a failure on so many levels. It's about a dead project that sounds pointless in the first place, and they didn't even get the name right in the headline or summary.

It's a trifecta of fail all at once.

Re:Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310328)

And you've completed it knowing nothing.

"It's about a dead project that sounds pointless in the first place"

Without C? (1)

tomalpha (746163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310030)

What's the C# runtime written in?

Re:Without C? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310122)

Look up bootstrapping.
Look up Java for an example.

Re:Without C? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310174)

Even microsoft doesn't write their OS in C#

Re:Without C? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310236)

Look up "Singularity" at Microsoft Labs and/or "Midori" elsewhere. They've done it, they just won't do it for Windows, there's a difference.

open source but (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310032)

What good is an open source OS if it requires me to purchase proprietary products to change or compile it? that's not freedom, that's just extension of Microsoft marketing campaign. And what about threat of Microsoft someday saying things built with their tools have Microsoft IP in them?

Re:open source but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310056)

What good is an open source OS if it requires me to purchase proprietary products to change or compile it? that's not freedom, that's just extension of Microsoft marketing campaign. And what about threat of Microsoft someday saying things built with their tools have Microsoft IP in them?

The express version of visual studio is free. You do not have to pay anything.

Re:open source but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310070)

Wait, Windows is free now? And I don't mean the Swedish version.

Re:open source but (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310076)

What good is an open source OS if it requires me to purchase proprietary products to change or compile it? that's not freedom, that's just extension of Microsoft marketing campaign. And what about threat of Microsoft someday saying things built with their tools have Microsoft IP in them?

The express version of visual studio is free. You do not have to pay anything.

Are you implying Windows is free now, or Visual Studio runs on other OS's? Or is it that you just did not think through the dependencies?

Subsidized by trialware (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310206)

Are you implying Windows is free now

Windows Home Premium (OEM version) is subsidized by trialware publishers, making it free as in beer to home users.

Re:Subsidized by trialware (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310502)

Are you implying Windows is free now

Windows Home Premium (OEM version) is subsidized by trialware publishers, making it free as in beer to home users.

Free as in beer? Is that sort of like a free drink when you pay $50 to go to a show? I'll tell you a secret, when something is free with the purchase of something else, it's a bundled cost. You're still paying for it. Your computer is that much more expensive than it would be if there were no such thing as Windows and only free OS's.

Re:open source but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310292)

Are you implying Windows is free now

Are you implying that the computer, the desk it's on, the building it's in and the electricity it uses to run were all free too?

Re:open source but (1)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310518)

What good is an open source OS if it requires me to purchase proprietary products to change or compile it?

The express version of visual studio is free. You do not have to pay anything.

Are you implying Windows is free now, or Visual Studio runs on other OS's? Or is it that you just did not think through the dependencies?

Are you implying Windows is free now

Are you implying that the computer, the desk it's on, the building it's in and the electricity it uses to run were all free too?

No, but the computer is not proprietary and you can build you own and compile things on any computer you want. You can buy or not buy any desk you want and buy or produce any electricity you want. With this project you have to buy Windows from Microsoft; one vendor, no choice. But then, I'm sure you knew that and are just being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to comprehend the point.

Re:open source but (2, Insightful)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310086)

"The express version of visual studio is free. You do not have to pay anything."

Still closed. Still proprietary. Still encumbered by patents. Stil useless for the basis of operating system development.

Re:open source but (2, Interesting)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310190)

You mean like all of your PC hardware? Or have you actually lithographed your own CPU from an open VHDL source, etched the PCB of your motherboard and so on?

Re:open source but (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310340)

I think that's a valid criticism of GP's point, but there are still reasons hardware and software are different here, and why it's more important for software to be open, particularly in this case.

There does seem to be real competition in hardware production, and there's also the fact that fabrication is still sufficiently expensive that free and open hardware designs aren't terribly useful to your average hacker, nor does it make any sense for a mid-size business to modify and contribute to their CPU designs if they don't have the resources to actually manufacture them.

Software is different. For one thing, it's entirely possible to operate at a level of abstraction such that the entire hardware stack may be swapped out for a competitor's, so we're hardly locked in. For another, an individual programmer can hack on open source software, let alone medium-sized businesses. Google can hack on Linux and make it do things no OS does, without having to start from scratch, and it often makes economical sense to submit such changes upstream.

I think here the main concern is how tightly this open-source project is coupled to proprietary technology. If Microsoft does something they don't like, they're fucked -- it is not likely to be trivial for them to port to Mono, let alone an entirely different platform, and any patents which affect .NET are likely to affect Mono. By contrast, if Intel does something they don't like, there's always ARM, PPC, and more exotic systems.

It also doesn't help that Microsoft is still in the OS business, and still cares about the OS business, which means this product directly competes with Microsoft, which means that if it ever took off, Microsoft would have the means and motive to kill it. Intel doesn't really have either -- it's designed to be portable to other platforms, and Intel has a motive to make things pleasant for their developers -- they're happy if it runs on Intel but not, say, ARM.

Re:open source but (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310138)

oh goody, I'll load that right up on my Debian 6 xfce desktop. or would my openbsd 4.9 server be better? oh wait. Guess I need that free as in liberty and beer Microsoft Windows 7 DVD ISO download link, could you post it?

Re:open source but (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310188)

>However, the source code can be compiled with the Express editions of Visual Studio.

From the article, thought I'd clarify that for you. No need to thank me.

Re:open source but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310250)

What good is an open source OS if it requires me to purchase proprietary products to change or compile it?

Windows is loaded on 90% of the desktop computers in the world, and you can't get access to a single one of them? If you are really concerned then you could work on porting it to Mono. If you don't want to do that, then chances are you were never seriously interested in this project anyway, so just move on and stop whinging.

And what about threat of Microsoft someday saying things built with their tools have Microsoft IP in them?

Microsoft are hardly likely to destroy their entire development division by preventing people from writing software with their tools.

Re:open source but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310310)

> Microsoft are hardly likely to destroy their entire development division by preventing people from writing software with their tools.

If they can profit from it more than from the alternative, they will do it.

Re:open source but (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310458)

oh really? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/jun/06/microsoftdeadl [guardian.co.uk]

no, I don't have access to microsoft desktops, for some reason the schools and libraries around here all run Macs. At home, I've wiped the MS-Windows from every (used) machine as soon as unboxed. poor me

I can whine and warn about potential Microsoft traps, including Miguel de Icaza's MONO. we don't need that kind of shit in the open source world.

Is it dirty? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310036)

Requiring a Windows environment to compile a OS is like using dirty energy to produce clean energy.

Re:Is it dirty? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310184)

Requiring a Windows environment to compile a OS is like using dirty energy to produce clean energy.

But... Windows is compiled in a Windows environment...

Done before, in Java, a few times, years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310042)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JX_%28operating_system%29

Writing a OS >canshould be done. That is what the naysayers main complaint is.

Re:Done before, in Java, a few times, years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310176)

In the 1980s operating systems have been written in Prolog, like SIMPOS [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Done before, in Java, a few times, years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310298)

Wait, so writing an OS in .NET has been done decades earlier with something that isn't .NET?

Written entirely in C# ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310044)

.... if you ignore the inline assembler code.

Did someone miss the 70's and 80's? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310046)

Imagine if you could write an OS without C, why you might go so far as to write a machine that could run Lisp native.

Re:Did someone miss the 70's and 80's? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310254)

the IBM mainframe operating systems that move most of the world's money and commerce weren't written in C, but in pl/x (historically pl/s then pl/as). The Unisys mainframe's (which move most the rest of the money not moved by IBM) OS are written in NEWP.

So what (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310052)

> Cosmos includes a compiler (IL2CPU, which is part of Cosmos) that reads the input file (usually the shell) and Cosmos libraries and compiles the resulting IL to x86 code.

So it is not .NET/Visual Studio what you are using but a derivation of what .NET/Visual Studio produces.

> IL2CPU also supports certain extension methods which allow C# code to interact directly with the CPU, registers, and ports in the kernel.

So it is not C# what you are using, but another language which makes it basically C++ (the real one, not that C++.NET bullshit).

How is this news? Besides, http://www.gocosmos.org/Old/Screenshots/gfx/guess.JPG 404s and runs under IIS.

Re:So what (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310078)

Exactly

good luck trying to write a memory manager in a manage language

or a fs

"oh but you can only use a subset of C# there" well, duh

unsafe (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310272)

good luck trying to write a memory manager in a manage language

-- I'll take C# for 800, Alex.
-- The keyword that enables pointer arithmetic. ... Pino.
-- What is unsafe?
-- Yes!

or a fs

As long as your code can read and write blocks on the device, a file system can be implemented in any language. Some operating systems allow file systems to run as user processes, and not just experimental microkernels either.

-- Linux for 400 please.
-- This electrical current limiter shares its name with a file system framework. ... Abi.
-- What is a fuse?
-- Yes, and you're on the board. Go again.

"oh but you can only use a subset of C# there" well, duh

A bootloader can only use a subset of C because it needs assembly language to get the x86 CPU out of backward-compatible "real mode".

Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310054)

The screenshots are visible here [google.com]

Anonymous for karma

Re:Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310306)

Or on their website [gocosmos.org] (once you fix their URL).

Hmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310060)

I'd rather stick pins in my eyes

And why??? (1)

jasnw (1913892) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310090)

You could build a high-rise building out of sugar cubes if you tried hard enough, but why? Is there really a need for yet another OS, built on yet another language-to-save-the-world? What this tells me is that there was this person who had way too much time on their hands, and rather than do something really useful with this time they decided "hey, wouldn't it be crazy-cool to have an OS written entirely in C#?" and there was no significant-other around to slap them upside the head.

Re:And why??? (5, Insightful)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310166)

What happened to the "because I could" spirit of the true hacker?

We have stories of people building CPUs inside of game logic that is in itself running on a virtual machine that runs on top of a hardware abstraction layer that runs inside a kernel that might very well be running under the purview of a hypervisor. What is the point?

There isn't a point other than to wave your hand at the mountain of functional but completely useless triumph and say "I did that; I built that mountain".

If you have to ask why someone would waste their time on something like this, you miss the point of hackerdom. Turn in your badge at the door.

Re:And why??? (-1, Troll)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310238)

He did it with C#, so suddenly all that geek spirit shit goes out the window. This is the article to say "why do this -- pointless" and not get modded down.

Re:And why??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310392)

He did it with C#, so suddenly all that geek spirit shit goes out the window.

That is a bit arrogant. People emulate entire computers in Javascript, so why not write an OS in C#?

This is just a bunch of coders having fun in their spare time. You don't need to come up with a business case for doing something that you enjoy.

Re:And why??? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310446)

Bullshit. We can bitch about it being C#, but I'd prefer C# to Excel any day... ...and yet, when someone builds a 3D engine in Excel [gamasutra.com] , they deserve some geek cred.

Of course, if he's trying to claim it's useful, then we might immediately respond with, "Why C#? Why not [insert option here]?"

Re:And why??? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310376)

What happened to the "because I could" spirit of the true hacker?

Slashdot lost that a good few years back.

These days cool geek projects only get slammed for every non-real reason they can come up with against the true hacker spirit. Most of the sites users seem to be 20 years old or younger, so 'early computing' to them is a single core Pentium 2 with ram still measured in megabytes instead of just bytes, and processing power still measured in ghz or mhz above one.

Then again I've found this to be true on most sites that claim to cater to geeks and hackers as of late, forums just flooded with anti-geek and anti-hacker types.
Somehow slashdot attracts a lot of the anti-technology crowd too, the type who feel if their current method of doing something was 65% efficient, getting that up to 67% efficient is worthless because it doesn't solve every last problem, while the other half of the members scream how the rest of the world having problems is a perfectly legit reason to not allow hackers to hack and learn things.

It's very pathetic and sad, but there seems to be no escape from it.
I'm just glad to know when the IT bubble pops, those are the types who will be lost in this world with no skills left that matter, while the true hacker types will be the ones rebuilding everything

An actual motivation... (2)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310410)

Ok, yes, there's the "because I can" motivation behind things like hanoimania [kernelthread.com] , and if you don't think that's awesome, I don't know what you're doing on Slashdot.

But there is a more serious reason this would be useful, either in C# or .NET: A managed memory OS would likely be more secure and more stable than one written in, say, C. They're also playing up the idea of having it be entirely verified. It's also nice in that if apps are all bytecode, it should be transparently portable across hardware.

Such a beast would likely not be a replacement for current OSes for a long time, because of performance. I'd love to be proven wrong here. Still, even if it comes at a heavy performance penalty, I know there are a lot of places I would gladly take an 80% performance hit for better security and stability, especially on today's hardware. In fact, that's a reason to run web apps. At the very least, there are small apps like the ragemaker [ragemaker.net] which are useful despite whatever imperceptible performance penalty there is, but which there is no way in hell I'm going to run outside of that sort of sandbox. And, similarly, there's no way in hell I could expect its author to release a Linux/ARM version, but if it runs in the browser, it runs on whatever platform/OS I want.

YAOS (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310102)

I don't really see the point in this - but that's irrelevant. The people developing this want to spend their time on the project, and that's all that matters. ... or so the discussion would go if the Cosmos creators hadn't built this on a Microsoft foundation. I expect a lot of comments will take a completely different viewpoint, given they'll see this as "tainted" by Microsoft. It'd be nice to be proven wrong, though.

Oh, and they chose the BSD license. That'll rile up some folks as well.

Re:YAOS (2)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310312)

The people developing this want to spend their time on the project, and that's all that matters. ... or so the discussion would go if the Cosmos creators hadn't built this on a Microsoft foundation.

I think that's fair enough in any case. It's a hobby project, they should work on whatever appeals to them

However ....

I expect a lot of comments will take a completely different viewpoint, given they'll see this as "tainted" by Microsoft.

... that doesn't mean that all such concerns are entirely unfounded. The patents supposedly encumbering the .NET framework are going reduce the number of environments where this is likely to be deployed. And the fact that you can't develop the solely using the OS is going to put a lot of people off, too. It's a different issue, really.

Don't get me wrong - it's a cool piece of tech, if only in the sense of "whoever would have thought it possible?", But given the technology base, it seems unlikely to get the level of deployment and/or developer buy-in needed to lift it above the level of a toy OS.

Just how dumb are you? (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310108)

#. It shows the naysayers you can write a full OS kernel without C

Congrats you showed the empty set something. Since nobody with the two brain cells required to know the word kernel would claim C is required for one.

Given we had then before C existed - GM-NAA I/O in 1954 would be the obvious "before C" one.

And we had non-C ones after C existed - LISP machines being the obvious example there.

What a stupid reason to write an OS (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310136)

It shows the naysayers you can write a full OS kernel without C.

This is the stupidest motive for writing an operating system I've ever heard of. What about VMS, written in FORTRAN? Or HP RTE-A, also written in FORTRAN?

Do you think the "classic" operating systems were written in a language that didn't even EXIST yet?

Re:What a stupid reason to write an OS (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310364)

VMS actually was written in Macro (essentially cross-compiled assembly from a PDP) and BLISS-32.

But yeah, the classic mainframe OS were written non-C like IBM's PL/S and friends (PL/X now). Unisys (formerly Burroughs) OS are written in NEWP (an extended ALGOL)

Re:What a stupid reason to write an OS (1)

hawk (1151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310484)

I'm going to date myself with this, but Primos (? Pr1mos? It's been a while . . .) was largely written in FORTRAN IV.

Kidding me? (0)

Zamphatta (1760346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310146)

cmdr taco leaves and we gets stories like this now. Whoever said you can't write an OS unless you do it in C? I've heard of OS's in C++ and even Assembly, among other things.

Singularity? (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310160)

How about Singularity [wikipedia.org] , Microsoft's own attempt to write an OS in an extended dialect of C#? Is this aiming at similar goals in any way?

Finally!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310192)

An OS even crappier then Windows. How could we not see that the way to do it was to use a part of Windows to write it?

Windows Required (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310200)

Nuff said'

And when they are done... (1)

jrbrtsn (103896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310224)

they will realize that C with some ASM produces the best performing, most efficient operating systems.

God forbid (5, Insightful)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310228)

God forbid anyone just think it's neat for the sake of doing it. No, everyone has to go on an anti-Microsoft rant. Personally, I think it's kinda cool. I'd never use it for anything, but it's still cool that it was done. Instead of shitting on the developers just be happy they did something outside of the norm.

An empty wiki is not documentation (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310230)

It's hard to tell what, if anything, this thing does. The "documentation" is a mostly empty wiki. There's a useless FAQ [codeplex.com] and a useless technical FAQ. [codeplex.com] Neither answers basic questions like "what does this run on" and "what is the API for programs which run on it". I can't even figure out whether it runs on a bare machine or on Windows or Linux or what. ("Your search for 'installation' has returned 0 results").

What this seems to be is some kind of scheme for running Microsoft .NET on a bare machine. Except that it doesn't, apparently, really boot on a bare machine; it's normally run as a Windows application under Visual Studio. I think.

God (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310234)

God says, "disgusted perishable diminishing petty continuance gnawed
Simple acts knitting modulation dispensest ever lined
till bemoaned unwearied contented discovery begging figured
making stowed voluptuous distract kind At mortal noted
heights NOT entreated friend death loosest sucklings liar
domestic happier obediently measurable Wyoming CONFESSIONS
real alterations discovered lover finally Send corruptible
MADE LETTER ."

Just stupid (0)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310242)

Seriously. You undertake a project like an OS. There are a lot of technical issues involved that sort of project. Do you choose a language that has a proven history or do you choose to use a language that is, by definition, not for this sort of application? Also, since they are dumping out assembler, and using NASM to compile code, it has ceased to be C#. It has become a hybrid system, just like every other OS. They've spent a lot of time using the wrong language and, in the end, proved nothing.

C# Easier language to program in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310504)

An easier to program language for the basis of a kernel may be the benefit. Code analysis tools could be used on the C# parts.

Article Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310252)

Why did Slashdot even bother writing this when the last update on the projects new page is from August of last year?

Of course OS's can be written without C (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37310270)

I worked on a system called MOS (from Olivetti) that was written in an extended Pascal. I have seen systems written in Lisp and even compiled Java,

Re:Of course OS's can be written without C (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310474)

dont try to inject logic here, this is slshdot, and nothing before yesterday existed (just ask the apple nuts)

Don't you look at Singularity (2)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310314)

Just read their FAQ:

If you have looked at Singularity the past, you are welcome to develop on Cosmos however you must be careful not to use your knowledge of Singularity. Unless you were involved deeply into Singularity code this will likely not be a problem. If you are concerned about this, choose purposefully to develop in a different area of functionality in Cosmos.

http://cosmos.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=FAQ

And no, that's not a joke.

This is good (1)

udachny (2454394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310336)

This is good. I wonder if an OS can be written in any language? COBOL? ADA? PL? Java? Javascript? Is it possible to do in all languages?

Re:This is good (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310400)

Any language that can read and write values in the HW - CPU, buses, chipset and RAM - can be used write an OS. Or any language that can do so after being compiled (which largely depends on the compiler).

But whether any old language is good for writing an OS is another story. If the language has few people with OS-caliber skills to read or write it, probably not. If the language is inflexible in its style, or low performance in its execution (eg. few result bits per op), probably not.

Java for example seems like a good OS language - especially for a distributed/virtual machine, as that's its native target HW - despite its abstraction away from bits and memory. Javascript does not, since it's not very expressive in manipulating bits, and its programming community relies on high level objects like the DOM and browser app for most techniques.

.Net Silicon? (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310358)

This project would interest me (a little) if the assembly that the C# is compiled to were run on silicon that executed CIL as machine instructions. Even if the CIL implementation were microcode that invoked x86 instructions, or a Transmeta-type on the fly conversion to native instructions.

I'd just like to know... (3, Informative)

vegaspctech (769513) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310510)

...who said you couldn't write an OS in C#, or that you couldn't write one without C? Obviously C wasn't used to build the OS that C was built on. And if that someone said they couldn't do it was their reason for doing it, quick, someone tell them that there isn't an OS written in COBOL and that they can't paint your house with a toothbrush. And no, if I say I think it's a waste of your time to paint a house with a toothbrush, it isn't because it's a Microsoft toothbrush or Microsoft paint or that you're painting a Microsoft house, it's because it's a frickin' toothbrush. By the way, I love how the FAQ link takes you to a page that tells you they moved the FAQ instead of just taking you there. It reminds me of all those links wannabe web designers did in the style If you'd like to read about Obvious Anchor Target click here.

Of course you can do this! (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37310514)

"It shows the naysayers you can write a full OS kernel without C"

That is one of the silliest statements I have seen lately. Of course you can write a kernel without C. You can write it in a lot of languages, the most obvious of which are assembly language or machine language. The latter is what C must eventually be translated into.

The issue may be what language is easier for the programmer to use, and which is more transportable from instruction set to instruction set.

There were a lot of kernels written long before anyone ever thought of C. Where has this person been?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...