According to about page on his website, the author is "a 14-year old computer hobbyist."
Quite impressive!
Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#12Very impressive. Maybe it can be used in unikernel with freestanding applications.
Some Suggestion: do not focus on GUI at first, since it will not be usable soon as desktop OS anyway.
I could imagine that a barebone ExDos to manage multiple unikernel ExDOS virtual machines as web services is quite useful.
Any comments?
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#13Is it able to run user-created programs? And if so, with what tools?
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#14Looks really cool.
One thing, though:
> tiny
> RAM: 64 MB required, 192 MB recommended.
That doesn't seem particularly tiny to me. I have an old Pentium II box with 32 MB of RAM that runs the latest release of OpenBSD with X, and I don't consider OpenBSD particularly tiny, either.
At risk of sounding like a crotchety old man, these are sad times to be living in when 64 MB is considered tiny.
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#15Reminds me of MenuetOS.
Would be cool to have a tiny OS run in the boot manager.
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#16Looks really cool. One thing, though: > tiny > RAM: 64 MB required, 192 MB recommended. That doesn't seem particularly tiny to me. I have an old Pentium II box with 32 MB of RAM that runs the latest release of OpenBSD with X, and I don't consider OpenBSD particularly tiny, either. At risk of sounding like a crotchety old man, these are sad times to be living in when 64 MB is considered tiny.
Classic DOS barely took up kilobytes of memory. I think that qualifies as "tiny". Megabytes is downright bloated by comparison.
Considering this is written in assembly, what is all that memory used for?
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#17Looks really cool. One thing, though: > tiny > RAM: 64 MB required, 192 MB recommended. That doesn't seem particularly tiny to me. I have an old Pentium II box with 32 MB of RAM that runs the latest release of OpenBSD with X, and I don't consider OpenBSD particularly tiny, either. At risk of sounding like a crotchety old man, these are sad times to be living in when 64 MB is considered tiny.
Classic DOS barely took up kilobytes of memory. I think that qualifies as "tiny". Megabytes is downright bloated by comparison. Considering this is written in assembly, what is all that memory used for?
Well, for one thing, it's a graphical OS.
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#18Looks really cool. One thing, though: > tiny > RAM: 64 MB required, 192 MB recommended. That doesn't seem particularly tiny to me. I have an old Pentium II box with 32 MB of RAM that runs the latest release of OpenBSD with X, and I don't consider OpenBSD particularly tiny, either. At risk of sounding like a crotchety old man, these are sad times to be living in when 64 MB is considered tiny.
In all fairness, I think tiny in this case refers to the fact that the OS is only 200kb. From the openBSD install guide:
OpenBSD can be installed in as little as 512MB, but using that small of a device is something for advanced users.
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#19Looks really cool. One thing, though: > tiny > RAM: 64 MB required, 192 MB recommended. That doesn't seem particularly tiny to me. I have an old Pentium II box with 32 MB of RAM that runs the latest release of OpenBSD with X, and I don't consider OpenBSD particularly tiny, either. At risk of sounding like a crotchety old man, these are sad times to be living in when 64 MB is considered tiny.
Classic DOS barely took up kilobytes of memory. I think that qualifies as "tiny". Megabytes is downright bloated by comparison. Considering this is written in assembly, what is all that memory used for?
Well, graphics rendering can take up many MB on its' own...
Re: Show HN: ExDOS 64-bit version source code release
#20Looks really cool. One thing, though: > tiny > RAM: 64 MB required, 192 MB recommended. That doesn't seem particularly tiny to me. I have an old Pentium II box with 32 MB of RAM that runs the latest release of OpenBSD with X, and I don't consider OpenBSD particularly tiny, either. At risk of sounding like a crotchety old man, these are sad times to be living in when 64 MB is considered tiny.
In all fairness, I think tiny in this case refers to the fact that the OS is only 200kb. From the openBSD install guide: OpenBSD can be installed in as little as 512MB, but using that small of a device is something for advanced users.
It might say that, but to be honest I had no difficulties installing on my box with 32 MB RAM. I didn't even have to do anything special; I just followed the normal installation procedure. It's not blazing fast by any means, but it does boot and it does work :)