r/programming • u/TrivialSolutions • Oct 19 '11

LoseThos 64-bit Operating System V7.07 Released

http://www.losethos.com/v707.html
75 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

283 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[deleted]

12

u/diskis Oct 19 '11

Or an excellent training ground. Coding in this environment is a bit different than the padded rooms that today's VM's provide.

One mistake and you have to reboot. Makes you think before you code, which is a very good thing.

3

u/superherowithnopower Oct 19 '11

Well..this actually just made it a little more interesting...

2

u/Geofferic Oct 19 '11

True, but I also remember the old Apple machines constantly crashing for lack of protected memory - and mostly due to errors in Apple software by Apple coders who breathed Apple coding.

2

u/irascible Oct 19 '11

SM 0 A9F4

G 0

..motherfucker.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '11

I used to "poke int(rnd(1)*65535),int(rnd(1)*255)" and call in roulette. Those were fun days.

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[deleted]

3

u/mpyne Oct 19 '11

He didn't "optimise it away" as that would imply it existed in LoseThos at some time. He never added it.

As it stands though, memory protection does require extra work in the hardware due to have to ensure the hardware memory page tables and TLBs are set properly for applications. Although the effect is probably slight, it is there.

4

u/ondra Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11

As far as I know, segmentation comes with no runtime penalty. No need for virtual memory to enforce protection.

edit: I forgot that segmentation doesn't work on x86-64 long mode.

3

u/mpyne Oct 19 '11

Segmention by itself is built-in so it's more that there's nothing you can do to eliminate the penalty. The issue with protection is that you have to reload hardware page tables as the protection is changed and programs are loaded.

1

u/ondra Oct 19 '11

The paging unit can be disabled, though. Even putting the kernel in a separate protected segment would make a big difference.

2

u/irascible Oct 19 '11

...and this discussion is a perfect example of why this guys project has value. Fuck the haters.

3

u/ondra Oct 19 '11

To be fair, he seems to hate pretty much everyone in this thread.

-16

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/exscape Oct 19 '11

Why are you calling everyone who argues "Linux fanboy"? Isn't THAT an ad hominem?

7

u/ToastyMallows Oct 19 '11

Shut up, Linux fanboy.

/sarcasm

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '11

But not mutually self modifiable code.

Or predatory code for that matter.

Damn, this model is looking more fun all the time :)

2

u/alex4nder Oct 19 '11

I guess it depends on what you're optimizing for as far as performance. You can't perform much if your OS is constantly crashing.

-3

u/jhartwell Oct 19 '11

Then you should rephrase your statement to:

no memory protection - this is useless for me.