will this work with liteX? fascinating project
QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
11–20 of 36 posts
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#12Is it a micro-kernel based? Because writing kernel drivers is not the most convenient approach.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#13> Skimmer's design intentionally echoes DragonFly BSD's LWKT and msgport
subsystems — the per-CPU runqueue, the lwkt_* API surface, the rule
that cross-CPU work flows as messages rather than as direct foreign
writes. DragonFly's source under ~/proj/OS/DragonFlyBSD/6.4.2/sys/kern/
was studied as a structural reference during v0.1 bring-up.
https://gitlab.com/qsoe/nq/-/blob/bfe5337676ee3818d24db4101b...
Is this Claude going unsupervised? There are also references to CLAUDE.md ("see CLAUDE.md for scope") which is nowhere to be found.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#14Do you have any plans (maybe in the far future) to re-implement the Photon microGUI system? Just asking because for me, that's half of what made QNX so great back in the day. Even today I keep raving about that 1.44MB demo floppy, about how polished, performant and efficient Photon was.
If anyone knows where to find a legitimate MIPS version of Photon, I’d be interested in starting a decomp project.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#15Do you have any plans (maybe in the far future) to re-implement the Photon microGUI system? Just asking because for me, that's half of what made QNX so great back in the day. Even today I keep raving about that 1.44MB demo floppy, about how polished, performant and efficient Photon was.
If anyone knows where to find a legitimate MIPS version of Photon, I’d be interested in starting a decomp project.
I don't think a MIPS version ever existed. The only public releases that ran on MIPS (6.4 and pre-SP1 6.5) only bundled a handful of Photon-related binaries, which if my memory serves were just input drivers.
There were x86 and more or less complete ARMv7, PowerPC, and SuperH ports.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Low-spec/embedded/vintage devices. Mainly RISC-V, or old x86 hardware like a Pentium III with a Matrox Millennium AGP card or something. For context: I'm sick and tired of modern hardware, modern GUIs and modern Internet... all of which keeps getting more and more complex, commercialised, controlled and demanding. I miss the old days, when hardware resources were paltry, when you could mostly understand what went on…
Fully support your dream -- and out of similar reason/sentiments I created GateMate PC (google for it) and GateMate S/359. I will return to these systems in autumn; it's a pure joy to work with them. As for the video controller -- if during the next couple of days I have zero success with GK-208 initialization in U-Boot, I have a plan B. I will throw away that card completely and will buy DragonBoard (Xilinx Artix 7)…
> GateMate PC (google for it) and GateMate S/359
Don't use Google, it doesn't deliver. Duck duck go does.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#17> Skimmer's design intentionally echoes DragonFly BSD's LWKT and msgport subsystems — the per-CPU runqueue, the lwkt_* API surface, the rule that cross-CPU work flows as messages rather than as direct foreign writes. DragonFly's source under ~/proj/OS/DragonFlyBSD/6.4.2/sys/kern/ was studied as a structural reference during v0.1 bring-up. https://gitlab.com/qsoe/nq/-/blob/bfe5337676ee3818d24db4101b... Is this Claude…
Don't worry, it's being fully supervised :) . Yes, almost the entire product is developed with Claude.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#18Is it a micro-kernel based? Because writing kernel drivers is not the most convenient approach.
Well, obviously: if it's "QNX-like", then it IS microkernel-based.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well.. who knows. My interests are not exactly in the area of GUIs, but I do agree that Photon was great. When the main system stabilizes; when it runs RT tests (such as the audio test I'm planning) under heavy load for e.g. one week -- AND when all important "syscall-like" APIs are implemented and proven to be correct -- I might return to this. Question to you: on which hardware platform would you like to have Photo…
Low-spec/embedded/vintage devices. Mainly RISC-V, or old x86 hardware like a Pentium III with a Matrox Millennium AGP card or something. For context: I'm sick and tired of modern hardware, modern GUIs and modern Internet... all of which keeps getting more and more complex, commercialised, controlled and demanding. I miss the old days, when hardware resources were paltry, when you could mostly understand what went on…
I HATE how modern & locked down the web is now, feels like we need to fork the internet. I want an internet that doesn't assume you're always online. I want an internet that is accessible and useful even even if you only connected a few times a day, or especially even if you were on a spacecraft a light-hour away.
Re: QSOE: QNX-inspired OS with dual-kernel architecture
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well.. who knows. My interests are not exactly in the area of GUIs, but I do agree that Photon was great. When the main system stabilizes; when it runs RT tests (such as the audio test I'm planning) under heavy load for e.g. one week -- AND when all important "syscall-like" APIs are implemented and proven to be correct -- I might return to this. Question to you: on which hardware platform would you like to have Photo…
Low-spec/embedded/vintage devices. Mainly RISC-V, or old x86 hardware like a Pentium III with a Matrox Millennium AGP card or something. For context: I'm sick and tired of modern hardware, modern GUIs and modern Internet... all of which keeps getting more and more complex, commercialised, controlled and demanding. I miss the old days, when hardware resources were paltry, when you could mostly understand what went on…
Same here.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, I could not have imagined a scenario where an editor takes up 200+ MB! The entire Office 97 suite was well under 192MB closer to 130MB! Adobe Photoshop CS2 installed was under 370 MB.
Memory usage now is also insane.
Office 2000 would run on 32MB of RAM and run really well on 64MB! Now a single tab on Firefox or any other browser on a static website takes up well over 400MB.
A single tab showing Facebook on my laptop takes up about 390MB! Even Hackernews website takes up 36MB!
I too want to go back to the days when things were a lot simpler.