<epony>
we did have LOGO and we also self-implemented plotter graphics (vector graph mathematics) and robots control toolkits back in the 80ies at information technology classes (during elementary school years) on 8bit 6502 machines produced locally
<epony>
and we had Z80 and CP/m
<epony>
on both 6502 in 8bit and for the 16bit on 8086 and 808186
<epony>
what we did not like was Apple, and Microsoft was not liked either
<epony>
we did use the original $ on most models, as the dollar was not seen as a conflict currency, but as a sigil in programming as a "string" indicator
<epony>
so was interpreted humanly as a "string" sign
<epony>
# was used too, without jail connotations either, don't start inventing stupid about its use in penatentiary colonial systems of slavery etc
<kof123>
the only purpose of my link was people keep posting "predecessor" so that supports the cp/m story
<epony>
CP/M is important
<epony>
DOS is a CP/M adapted clone
<epony>
CP/M is a UNIX adapted simlification for smaller machines
<epony>
also Gary was a co-host on the "Computer Chronicles" weekly TV magazine show about the computing of the 80ies
<epony>
he was a cool dude
<epony>
Microsoft dudes are not, however they are "not cool" and stupid people.
<klys>
COMMAND COM 1842 04-28-81
<klys>
it doesn't appear to load anything before that except the separate bios rom
<epony>
btw Microsoft did not create DOS, it was bough from an "independent" programmer copying CP/M
<epony>
also Google did not create Android, neither Youtube, they were bought bouhgt in.
<epony>
and also, Apple did not create the graphical interface, it was copied from Xerox PARC
<epony>
there is a lot of lies in the production of the commercial implementers from the 'big tech' proud achievements of international dominant control
<klys>
the boot sector contains the string "COMMAND COM" at hex 0125
<klys>
all 64 invocations of "int" in command.com there are "int 0x21".
<epony>
maybe Tim Paterson was lacking a real computer and used minimal programming for a prototype to sell out without proprietary firmware programming..
<epony>
"1979 January Seattle Computer Products' Tim Paterson finishes the design of his first 8086 CPU card for the S-100 bus.[24] MayPaterson, with his working two-card prototype boardset installed in a Cromemco Z-2 box, drives to Microsoft to try it with Microsoft's Standalone Disk BASIC-86—a version of BASIC with a rudimentary built-in operating system—which Bob O'Rear developed for the 8086 by simulating the 8086 chip on a DEC computer. After eliminating a
<epony>
few minor bugs, Microsoft had a working 8086 BASIC.[17][44]"
netbsduser has joined #osdev
<epony>
"1980 August Paterson's operating system, which he calls QDOS 0.10 ("Quick and Dirty Operating System"), ships.[57] It's crammed into 6 KB of code.[21] Seattle Computer Products runs an ad in Byte marketing it as 86-DOS for $95.[66] Seattle Computer contacts Microsoft about adapting Microsoft BASIC for the new operating system, proposing a cross-licensing arrangement.[17]"
<epony>
"Microsoft announces Xenix, a port of Version 7 Unix to x86 computers, saying that it will prevent a 16-bit software crisis. Xenix will also be available for the PDP-11 as early as October; Motorola 68000 and Zilog Z8000 versions are also coming" --Microsoft is retarded, BSD UNIX was free to all who wanted the real system which ran since 1974 and in 1980 was the dominant OS which was "FREE" and "OPEN" and you only paid $5.= USD shipping cost for the tape package
<epony>
if IBM did not cave in to Microsoft's insidious licensing agreement, people would have CP/M on the PCs and an adapted UNIX as early as 1982-1984
<epony>
Microsoft blocked that up until the IBM compatibles after 80386, and technically Z80 enabled multi-user co-processor systems on 6502 and 8086 / 80186 and 80286
<epony>
Microsoft kept blocking that way up until recently when they "ingested" some "overlay" which they called Windows services for Linux, which is reverse (retarded again) naming as it is Linux services or Windows, much like the former UNIX services for Windows which nobody used because it was buggy and crashed a lot, and Novell sold Netware and IPX/SPX and NetBEUI (NetBIOS)
<epony>
in short, Microsoft is a dirty and unethical reseller of captive products that are expensive and obsoleted and with malware built into them
<epony>
and so is Apple
<epony>
they are both commercial downstream re-implementers of UNIX with intentional incompatibilities from software to cabling and interfaces and system programming and calling conventions, whatever comparison, is for productisation and platformisation, vendor lock-in captive profiteering and not for no technical advantage
<epony>
the casette interface for 8bit PCs was horrible and useless, people were getting 2x 5.25" FDDs
<epony>
and on the IBM PC/XT had full height 5.25" HDD + 5.25" FDD which in the AT variant were half-height and better models
<epony>
there was absolutely no reason to "ever get anything" from Microsoft or Apple intermediary resellers of faulty software
<epony>
IBM made that happen for Microsoft, and.. the 8bit 6502 were obsoleted overnight and the Apple models after the Apple ][ were closed designs and were cancelled here
<epony>
and then in the 90ies IBM was cancelled too
<epony>
people were getting compatibles that were "IBM clones" and then the Pentium MMX replaced all traces of RISC and attempts from Apple to came back evoaporated completely
<epony>
by the time Windows 95 debuted, Linux had working distributions and for 1-2 years until the dust settled Windows98 and Win98SE was getting subplanted and replaced by Linux with XFCE and much more KDE, and then again before that Linux ran fine even without a desktop if you could get XFree86 running on your "deccelerator" S3 card
<epony>
Linux ran fine, but it was a bit sluggish on such a powerful machine, it was a real shame..
<epony>
so the dual boot was still useful and neded up until the later 586 models (K6-II and IIi) where Linux was noticeably faster and fun
netbsduser has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<epony>
enthusiasm has excessive, we were recompiling kernels and everything was very interesting again ;-) while with DOS it was stupid and a time waste, there was limited programmability expensive compilers and people were getting dumb and unhappy, unless they got a lot of diskettes pirated with all the software they needed
<epony>
so DOS and Microsoft were depressors and money leaches
<epony>
and Apple is the same
<epony>
nobody gave much attention to the proptieray BIOS / ROM of the IBM PCs and before that Apple ][
<epony>
they were copied, reverse engineered, replaced and quite uninteresting as an obstacle
<epony>
the BIOS/BDOS drivers were not a problem, the computers were reliable and ran fast at native speed unobstructed
<epony>
there was full programmability on the hardware and 6502 15 book series and 8086 5 book series
<epony>
the thing that was missing was UNIX, multi-tasking, the networking, internal storage, memory was not enough, compilers were expensive
<epony>
cloned PCs had most of these sorted with maxed memory expansions cards included and coprocessors, and all the software pirated and free with the computer
<epony>
nobody really gave a crap about "the proprietary" designs as it was an open and de facto fully accessible programmable machine with everything specified on books and even redesigned and licensed to third party implementers
<epony>
and.. the idea of copyright and its application did not even exist
<epony>
software was expected to be free and open and available with the computers and openly redistributed between people on diskettes and printed listings and on carried hard disks
<epony>
commercial software vendors were unheard of, and nobody knew why "Microsoft" was placing its name on their screen at all, the computer was from IBM
<epony>
or a clones producer, so people were picking IBM PC DOS or CP/M if they could find programs for it (that was the real limiting factor)
<epony>
Microsoft's top product like, the Externded BASIC, was not very much used (AT ALL) people were fed up with it from the 8bit ROM BASIC and there was ROM Basic on the 16bit PCs which got in the way of real work and use
<epony>
so was a "last chance" when there was some distraction to be had or if you got bored with programs and wanted to do some practice with own programming
<epony>
the Microsoft BASIC was an Interpreter and could not compile to binaries, and later had a runtime parasitic file which got lost..
<epony>
it was slow, and people were picking Pascal on the 8bit and continued with that on the 16bit machines
<epony>
C was not yet popular and came later with the Turbo Pascal and Turbo C
<epony>
and people did not realise they needed C as it was more difficult to program and learn, and Pascal was fine ;-)
<epony>
so C became more important for specialised and system programming.. and more prominent on the 32bit PCs
<epony>
if DOS was not such a futile and primitive system, things would have been much much more fun with reliable and sustainable computing instead of restarting the computer, but.. it was not the system for programming, really and it is what was most hated about it, the limitations and the blockage for more important work
antranigv has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<epony>
and so, DOS was damnation and limitation, and so was BASIC and people liked Fortran instead and Pascal even more
<epony>
and Compaq Portable instead of IBM PC
<epony>
the IBM PC XT/AT had some appeal in it, as its design and adapted features, but overall, that was lost in the PS/2 epoch and it got lost too
<epony>
Lotus was NOT popular, people used standalone programs for Calc in the "Plan" series and text editors like Pe/Pe2/Pe3, nobody used EDLIN (that's retarded)
<epony>
and then some "Word" like applications, primitive document editors.. there was not much advantage to that
<epony>
the really important applications were the CAD/CAM ones
<epony>
Word was not really an advantage, and Plan / Calc had more utility to it
<epony>
graphics adaptors were mostly Hercules and the built-in
<epony>
CGA was fun, we did not have colour monitors all that much but 16 colour text modes were fun and useful for programming
<kof123>
hmm...but how could proprietary commercial software not develop? wasn't that inevitable? what is the one field of life that stayed independent of financial control ? stamp collecting?
<epony>
I still like that from that epoch, it was also what I liked about 32bit computers, the colour graphics
<epony>
well, we're behind the iron curtain here
<kof123>
:D
<epony>
and we had locally produced cloned software
<epony>
and every piece of western original software was copied and everyone with enough diskettes had it
<epony>
I still keep 10 boxes of 8bit PCs diskettes here stuffed with 2:1 ration of diskettes in them
<epony>
the 8bit PCs are gone ;-) but the diskettes live after 40 years
<epony>
I remember each of them as programs
<epony>
from RATFOR to COBOL to PROLOG to MERLIN the assembler to MUSIC MAKER to PIXIT to games like KARATEKA and CONAN etc
<epony>
OUTPOST, BOLO.. PACMAN, DIAMOND MINE
<epony>
and some utiltiies like LOCKSMITH and PC TOOLS
<epony>
and the chess variants SARGON I and II
<epony>
some RTTY logging programs and modem control utitilities
<klys>
i can now state with confidence that the only int 0x21 services used by above command.com are from the set [ 0x1 0x2 0x9 0xa 0xe 0xf 0x10 0x11 0x13 0x16 0x17 0x19 0x1a 0x1b 0x2522 0x2523 0x26 0x27 0x28 0x2901 ].
<epony>
of course PASCAL and BASIC on diskette
antranigv has joined #osdev
<epony>
there was even a game of WOLFENSTEIN
<epony>
and TETRIS
<epony>
there was a primitive labirynth called DEMON
<epony>
some stupid "adventure" games nobody could get going
<epony>
and get this, there was DOS on 6502 on diskettes but we did not really need it ;-)
<epony>
the system built-in ROM was decent for both Basic programming and access to diskette drives
<epony>
and for saving and reading your programs back
<epony>
I kind of liked loading the DOS as it made the system look more complete
<epony>
but it ate precious RAM
<kof123>
well i would love to see some operating system that leaves copyright to the user....you would want signed code perhaps, so authors could build a reputation while still remaining "anonymous"....this is not to say it should be full of stolen/pirated things, but let the user decide who they trust ;d
<epony>
one of the important activity was validating diskettes and copying software on newly reformatted ones to have spares
<kof123>
"stolen" "pirated" did not mean to twist words
<epony>
it was in books original title page details
<epony>
and on the back cover of books and on films
<epony>
we thought it was an indicator of quality or quality check
<epony>
we did not know anything about it, and thought copy right was "the name" of the authors for "reputation"
<epony>
and all rights reserved meant that they did not want you to sell it or not to make any profit
<kof123>
no corp. would touch it though, at least not flout it, if they don't know who wrote what code
<epony>
but we did not know that they wanted to never copy it ;-)
<epony>
and btw, business are the largest thieves and they steal everything
<epony>
from each other and from everyone else as industrial espionage
<kof123>
yes, i meant some people might consider that an advantage :D
<kof123>
keeps them away :D
<epony>
so we had "no relation" and "not outside connection" the facility is guarded control access here
<epony>
and the country was like that too, and the entire eastern bloc was that too
<epony>
plus no one was silly enough to come here from abroad instead of living rich and famous lives there
<epony>
but software, it was supposed to be free from always
<epony>
not free from tomorrow or next 20 years
<epony>
it was expected to always be part of the computing and to be "everything" needed
<epony>
as it makes the computer work, it is a real scam to not have it
<epony>
like a television that does not have channels, be reasonable ;-)
<epony>
TV needs the television programming coming over the air, no normal person was watching TV from tapes
<epony>
same about computers and programming
<epony>
has to come over the air and over the wire and with the computer and have all varieties
<epony>
and it was like that ;-)
<epony>
so nobody cared even about IBM and Apple as our PCs here were locally produced and installed everywhere
<epony>
so this Microsoft was considered as a "virus" that tries to take over the computer and we did not like it
<epony>
we wanted original "true" software that was not commercial
<epony>
we thought that commercial software was a scam and expensive but not reliable or undermined
<epony>
or just made difficult for no good reason
<epony>
and you know, we were right about it for all of these details
<epony>
thad kind of expectation about problems with commercial software and profiteering was always there, and the slightest mishap could "confirm it" and "break the reputation" of the software, but we did not care much, we just wanted everything to work reliablly, fully, thoroughly, to have all the documentation and programs and for this to be free and available
<epony>
and carrying around disketes was not a problem, but the 3.5" floppies LOST IT
<epony>
we did not like them at all and stopped using diskettes then
<epony>
it was a 1 disketter or 2 diskettes in a shirt pocket.. just in case you needed to copy some text file.. but that was, less than the box of diskettes of fun on the 8bit PCs
<epony>
we stopped lugging diskettes on 16bit PCs even, but had these as "system recovery"
<epony>
on the 32bit computers, it was an oddity
<sham1>
Just back up to the cloud, ez
<epony>
I was downloading the free OS on diskette images with a narrowband modem..
<epony>
well no, we don't use the cloud here, it loses files as you lose the accounts
<zid>
I'd maybe consider 0x25 to be "Set interrupt vector"
<zid>
of which ,0x22 and ,0x23 are used
<zid>
(like how write character to stdout isn't 0x200, 0x201, 0x202..)
<epony>
so, we liked the CD-ROM much more as a medium compared to floppies, but we carried doom around on FDDs and Descent the game and DOS and even Windows.. and Linux
<epony>
and we started carrying around HDDs between friends and work
<epony>
that was the primary unit of data portability from 1996-2002, a HDD
<epony>
then since 2002-2004 it was mostly many computers and network
<epony>
I got the network going on here between PCs in serial and parallel cross links myself
<epony>
and then in 1996-1997 the Internet arrived as commercial offering
<epony>
so.. floppies remained a "fallback recovery mode"
<epony>
CD-ROM was for exchanging programs that others had and gave to friends to copy and return the disk
<epony>
and HDD bulk carry was the elite tooling
<epony>
DOS was irrelevant since 1991-1992 but we still used it for programming up to 1995 when it really was less used (at all)
<epony>
we did manually run Windows when needed in the Windows3-3.11 epoch
<epony>
and to be fair about it, we did not need it much
<epony>
NT3.5 was more compelling as a Window95 alternative and precursor
<epony>
but we stopped doing that split DOS / Windows use just with Windows95 on more useful computers (more compute power) made no sonse to waste in that legacy DOS
<epony>
so this practice remains today on UNIX too
<epony>
manually starting X (and it having a scripted session) but naturally starting the machine without it
<epony>
I would and still consider the GUI an abnormal mode of running the computer interactively, and expect to start it myself as needed (it wastes time)
<epony>
so when doing system maitnenance and upgrades, I skip it.. just have easy access to the the download and upgrade routine and that's it
<epony>
GUI later, for the interactive use
<epony>
that is why "fully graphical" workstations and immitations for that on Apple and Windows are considered an abnormal, reduced strength and quality, weak systems, fragile and prone to breakate, unmageable and unreliable
<epony>
because they "try to reduce backwards portability" and boot you dropped into a graphical "stuck mode" of either no tooling or difficult recovery and repair / maintenance mode (which is not part of the system or looks different and unreliable with consumer choices that break it)
gbowne1 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<epony>
the recovery routines for these graphical systems are "damaged goods" as our understanding goes
<epony>
UNIX is much more reliable in all these aspects and reminds of the real machines of the mini- and micro- computer epoch
<epony>
and thus we can't really trust this *EFI thing ;-)
<epony>
it's full of "problems" and in the same way the Arm computer boards, needing and SD card like a diskette to boot, not having it stored internally, not have a real time clock, no persistent storage.. no reliable programming, incompatible models, missing program suites.. graphical setup utilities..
<epony>
it's the 8bit PCs done badly in new times.. a horror story
<epony>
and an amalgamation between the proprietary bad designs from Apple and Microsoft, totally dangerous and risky
<epony>
hence.. no flight on those ;-) you figure it out why it's considered useless porting software to these short lived proliferation model spillage small compute boards
<epony>
it's not like we don't have other computers ;-) and we're not in 1981 where an such computer would be "extremely nice"
<epony>
in 2001 such an computer however is considered extremely stupid
<epony>
and in 2021.. what the.. it's not even cheap
<epony>
we could like DOS on the 8bit PCs, we could enjoy it on the 16bit PC, we could tolerate it briefly for games or specialised programs on the 32bit PC but we really can not stand it any more in 1995 it was too much
<epony>
so having it "in" Windows was passable, it was stupid to have it in Windows3.11 but doable with switching full screens
<epony>
after 2002 DOS made no sense and the DOS programs were considered a real problem up to 2005 it was gone.. really used in some legacy more up till the end of the WindowsXP epoch
<epony>
I liked it, for games and some DOS programs, but it was an exception, and I liked the DOS programming of BAT files, which was useful.. in the Win95 epoch was partly useful too
<epony>
but, in really we wanted Shell programming and that's why I liked really
<epony>
so DOS is considered garbage and trash, and that is realistic evaluation
goliath has joined #osdev
<epony>
CP/M is considered passable and limited and constrained
<epony>
and UNIX is considered a real operating system that works, and Shell programming in UNIX usable and worth it
<epony>
that manages the system, from installation to upgrades to maintenance to sessions to terminal use for scripting and utilities
<epony>
it's the primary interface.. while in Windows.. it's being shoved somewhere and nobody wants to touch it, because DOS is a disease and Windows is its zombie corpse
<epony>
that's about as much as you can get people to like the Windows new "shell" of "powershell".. it's too late never going to touch it neither Windows7 even with a 3 metre discharge rod
<epony>
Windows is defunct and dead since WindowsXP was "endeaded"
<epony>
DOS died with Windows95-98SE
<epony>
Apple died in 1984-1986, and IBM died in 1994-1996
<epony>
Microsoft died after its Office 97 was not available and not supported any more.
<epony>
Microsoft Office 2000 was too much and was on the exit.
<epony>
Windows2000 was weak and useless, and the productisation and platformisation was obvious, WindowsXP sustained things and after its end it is game over
<epony>
Windows7 was a problem and did not work reliably, so it was uninstalled and Microsoft is dead in 2014-2016
<epony>
Linux won the desktop in 1996-1998 and took over laptops in 2006-2008 and much more after 2012 with virtualisation
<epony>
We used here software virtualisation since 1998-1999 to 2002 in Windows host and Linux guest due to office requirements and then flipped them out
<epony>
so, since 2002 it's Linux native everywhere, and Windows as a guest on some hosts for office work only
<epony>
after 2005 Windows got pulled out from that mode
<epony>
we're using FreeBSD since 1996-1998 and OpenBSD since 1998-2000
<epony>
Windows is banned since 2012
<epony>
and it was on support only as a "second choice" since 2002
<epony>
after 2014 it's not seen any more and not being used
<epony>
it was nice but stupid and created countless hours of problems and resource waste, it was never commercially justified and it was considered a liability and a problem, and the source for viruses and failure
<epony>
it is the same today for everyone and the damages are massive with financial and material losses
<epony>
we really like computers and western technology, but only the parts of it that are engineered correct and work reliably and efficiently
<epony>
that excludes "big tech" completely
<epony>
and the cloud is not usable, we use on premises computers built from components and locally, and dedicated servers in data centres independently of software and without forced servcies and subscriptions
<epony>
so, that model does not work and it will never work, even for businesses with enough money from the medium and large levels
<epony>
it is undermined consumer grade technical offerigns for small and naive business that fail quickly
<epony>
medium and large business get own servers and own data centres
<epony>
you also know what we think of "smart" phones.. toys for light data entry and personal time waste as pocketable entertainment
<epony>
nothing else
<epony>
not a target worth programming even
<epony>
and the cellular internet pricing plans.. are an abomination of metered stupidity and spam
<epony>
western music declined in its usefulness and aesthetic after the 90ies, and the films became duller and less realistic in the next decade
<Mutabah>
dang epony you've been posting constantly for nearly two hours
<epony>
oh well ;-) ok
<epony>
oupsie ;-)
<kof123>
no no no no no keep posting until you are angry enough to write code to remedy this
<Ermine>
oopsie-whoopsie, take a dookie-dookie
antranigv_ has joined #osdev
xenos1984 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
antranigv has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<zid>
I had an idea about my MCEs
<zid>
I had it crash immediately when I tabbed in after I'd left it in the background for a while, I bet that caused it to migrate to a different core, and that core was broken, and I bet it's core 8
xenos1984 has joined #osdev
<kof123>
why is everyone so cold? /me points at bslsk05 he just got lost to metaphor > Of Nature so fyrye that we yt call Our Baselysk
<kof123>
"like from like" it is like conway's law :D
[itchyjunk] has joined #osdev
vdamewood has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
gog has joined #osdev
kfv has joined #osdev
zid has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<epony>
"the coolest people are.. in the morgue" --teh brothers Grim "rappier" Grymes
<epony>
kof123, I'm into Shell scripting ;-) and have been fixing and doing things forever ;-)
<epony>
anger has never been involved into this, everything computing and electronics.. is always fun and super interesting and special in a way.. a place of peace and natural "existence"
<epony>
it's like having a nice garden of flowers and vegetables and wine grapes and an orchard garden of fruit and your own well with blessed water and your own farm with the most peaceful and graceful animals and the best neighbours in the village on top of the world in a big big valley of black rich soil Earth
<kof123>
what shell :D
<Ermine>
ksh probably
<epony>
Korn shell mostly 'cause it's on the system, but Bash is passable with a nose clamp
<epony>
yeah
<Ermine>
or as I call it, shite shell
<epony>
I've use csh interactively too, on FreeBSD..
<epony>
Bash is not tha bad, but Ksh is nicer in its simple and reliable variant
<epony>
there is also ksh93 that.. can be interesting
<epony>
in my opinion the tool is not that important as long as it is a consistent convention and does not result in "dissonance" while you use it
zid has joined #osdev
<zid>
Halved my infinite fabric speed.. we'll see if that helps..
<epony>
and over time, programs and theri programming languages (DSL implementations) become "concepts" of understanding
<epony>
so the "minor" deviations are.. tolerable somewhat
<Ermine>
not so infinite fabric
<epony>
but strictly speaking C is for systems programming not Shell constructs
<epony>
so the only shell that is possible for programming is one that is not using the system programming language
<epony>
and it's not because it can't be done, but because of the efficiency that a special purposely designed language delivers
<Ermine>
> shell > programming LMAO
<epony>
on the implementation side, the failures with inband and interleaved language constructs falling through are.. monumental laughters
<epony>
well you can not appreciate it, but it is more powerful than you can imagine and can teach you some concepts you never knew you needed, once known you'll cry and wish your super language had them
<epony>
shell is one of the higher level programming modes that you can "enjoy"
<epony>
with limited "experimental" and "less crazy" but still quite powerful tooling and precise "strength" and "execution" control you wish you had with an interpreted language
<epony>
the Shell language to manage the system is not "accidental" and there to "have something" it's a serious programming system
<epony>
that's why you don't manage UNIX in Python
<epony>
it's useless for UNIX programming
<epony>
and so is Rust ;-)
<epony>
so there you go, two zingers in one coin flip
gabi-250_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gabi-250_ has joined #osdev
<epony>
try that with "pseudo languages" like Javascript too, if you feel adventurous, see how much of a UNIX control you can achieve with it and not get your system lose it (the Javascript, not the data)
<epony>
I can keep buzzing and sparking you more if you like your languages, but you won't like UNIX that way.. so better accept this, you can use any language on UNIX but only some of them in UNIX.
<gog>
the kings of old wanted UNIX
kfv has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
kfv has joined #osdev
kfv has quit [Client Quit]
GeDaMo has joined #osdev
kfv has joined #osdev
kfv_ has joined #osdev
kfv has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
kfv_ has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
<gog>
i'm dying
<GeDaMo>
You're not supposed to swim in the lava :|
<zid>
gog: so is my cpu, snap!
<zid>
I should check the delivery date on that thermal paste
<zid>
tomorrow, okay
bauen1 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
bauen1 has joined #osdev
bauen1 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Left_Turn has joined #osdev
epony has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
navi has joined #osdev
Arthuria has joined #osdev
Matt|home has joined #osdev
<sham1>
I like shell
<sham1>
Korn shell
<gog>
freak_on_a_lea.sh
heat has joined #osdev
bauen1 has joined #osdev
antranigv_ is now known as antranigv
solaare has joined #osdev
<heat>
gog, the kings of old wanted UNIX, but did they prefer AIX?
Arthuria has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<Matt|home>
.. damn
<Matt|home>
heat , i have a really basic coding question regarding OOP
<jimbzy>
Sup
<Matt|home>
so im familiar with the idea of passing arguments to a function in C, and the function returning a specific data type. it makes sense. you do something like int myfunct(int x); and pass it x, the function uses x for whatever and then returns
<Matt|home>
but im looking at the syntax for OOP stuff, python in particular and im not sure i understand what's going on
<Matt|home>
mystring = "test" and then mystring.capitalize() for example
<Matt|home>
is the . operator just a fancy way of saying we're passing mystring as an argument to capitalize() ?
<Ermine>
yes
<Ermine>
str.capitalize("test")
<Matt|home>
does it automatically change the variable?
<nortti>
change what variable?
<Matt|home>
mystring = "test" <-- mystring is a string constant yes?
<heat>
no
<heat>
most languages don't have string constants
<Matt|home>
okay, it is a string?
<heat>
they have *strings*
<heat>
yes
<Matt|home>
once you call capitalize with mystring.capitalize()
<Matt|home>
it changes mystring ?
<nortti>
on python, no
<heat>
it depends? did you read the docs
<Matt|home>
reading a tutorial rn
<heat>
python and java strings are immutable
<nortti>
Matt|home: do you have a python interpreter you can run? I can recommend just trying stuff out in the interactive interpreter
Terlisimo has quit [Quit: Connection reset by beer]
Terlisimo has joined #osdev
<mcrod>
hi
<mcrod>
god i haven’t done any real python in forever
<Ermine>
don't do python, do go
<mcrod>
do not pass go
<Matt|home>
when you have a variable that has a value other than 0 or 1 and you do something like if(var) , how does that evaluate for true/false exactly? is it different per language/platform or is it all the same
<zid>
is there a such a thing as real python
<zid>
I was under the impression it was ad-hoc messes all the way down
<mcrod>
it is
<mcrod>
but i haven’t written anything beyond simple matplotlib stuff lately
gog has joined #osdev
<kof123>
matt: yes, it depends on language. a common return value of C programs ( main() function ), is that EXIT_SUCCESS is 0
<Matt|home>
ok. i was just curious how strings are evaluated if a language lets you compile something like mystring = 'hi' if (mystring) or whatever
<kof123>
sorry...re-read your question, for things other than 0 or 1 ... but yes, still it depends :D
<Matt|home>
i guess you can only do boolean comparisons with booleans and ints
<kof123>
you have similar issues with let us say ... are two objects equal? what does this mean?
<kof123>
or an int "3" and a float or whatever other type...are they "Equal" ?
<kof123>
and a string "3"
<Matt|home>
yeh smth like if(3) i guess evalutes to if(3 == true) ?
<Matt|home>
nbd was just curious
<kof123>
and as soon as you have pointers or similar...what does it mean to copy? copy the pointer? "deep copy" and clone the object's data?
<kof123>
*internal data
<nortti>
Matt|home: it depends on the language. in C for example, 3 is considered true because anything that is not 0 is true (or something to that effect)
<Matt|home>
ty nortti
<jimbzy>
It's like John Von Neumann said of mathematics. In C you don't understand things. You just get used to them! ;)
xenos1984 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
dude12312414 has joined #osdev
xenos1984 has joined #osdev
<Ermine>
You just need to understand how it reflects some part of pdp-11 assembly
<zid>
bitwise true vs boolean true, nortti ;)
<zid>
boolean 0 false, boolean 1 true, converting integer 47 to boolean 0 is nutty
<Ermine>
jz
<sham1>
jnz
<zid>
je
<zid>
hah gottem
<sham1>
ye
<zid>
what does intel use
<zid>
je
<zid>
and jz
<sham1>
AMD?
<nortti>
zid: ah, sure, guess I should've said "truthy" there
<zid>
It literally lists both, like they're seperate instructions, heh
<zid>
74 cb JE rel8 D Valid Valid Jump short if equal
<Ermine>
which, as we now know, should be read as he and hz
<zid>
74 cb JZ rel8 D Valid Valid Jump short if zero
<nortti>
hump if zero?
<zid>
nortti: not right now thanks
<Ermine>
nortti: yes
<zid>
jnl, til that exists
<zid>
(I've always used jge)
<sham1>
jnl is semantic if you're specifically thinking about "not less than" even though of course that's the same as "greater or equal to"
<zid>
they're semantically identical, but I get what you mean, they're.. different.. descriptively?
<sham1>
Yeah. Of course, it helps that in some sense x86 was made to be written by hand
<zid>
that and they were sort of collating all the '8/16 bit micros' of the era into one official syntax for their chip
<zid>
jrcxz would probably make me go wtf the first time I saw it
<zid>
I've still not
<zid>
I assume it's probably a crap instruction in practice, and most of the time, jz does the same thing, because the alu just set the flags from the dec you did on rcx
<nortti>
huh, they kept that for amd64
<nortti>
would have presumed it'd've been dropped alongside e.g. the BCD instructions
<zid>
I wonder if anybody supports it for like, lea rcx, [rsi+48]; jrcxz out
<zid>
for if(!s->p) goto out;
<zid>
in -Os maybe
Turn_Left has joined #osdev
<nortti>
do you mean mov instead of lea?
<zid>
yes, yes I do
<zid>
you might be able to use it 'properly' in thiscall functions
<zid>
blah: jrcxz this_is_missing;
<zid>
if(!this)
<zid>
properly as in, not after a dec rcx
<nortti>
isn't "this" by definition nonzero?
<sham1>
In C++, but maybe it's not C++
<zid>
and who says the *compiler* isn't doing that
<zid>
if you use ubsan or something
<zid>
or it doing it to implement some kind of polypenisism
<zid>
etc
Left_Turn has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
dude12312414 has quit [Quit: THE RAM IS TOO DAMN HIGH]
goliath has quit [Quit: SIGSEGV]
<heat>
do compilers even know about jrcxz? i've never seen it before
<heat>
oh gcc does
<heat>
two jrcxz in my libc.so.6
<Ermine>
"Jump short if RCX register is 0"
<heat>
Ermine help me my ISA is BLOATED and has BLOATED INSTRUCTIONS and BLOATED PAGE SIZES
<Ermine>
use 8086
<heat>
give me a m i n i m a l isa with m i n i m a l instructions and 512-byte pages
<Ermine>
You aren't bloated if you can't do anything, that's for sure
<Ermine>
do such isas even exist?
<heat>
VAX had 512 byte pages but linked list instructions
<Ermine>
there's some soviet replica of vax iirc
<Ermine>
maybe that will do
<heat>
lets hope they didn't bring the Patented Linked List Optimized Instructions
<nortti>
I think that was at the point where the soviet political apparatus had abandoned the idea of working on their own computer technology, so I'd presume it's just a die copy
<sham1>
z80 is bae
<sham1>
As is M68k
<heat>
x86 is better suck it sham1 suck it sham1 x86 is better m68k is dead
<heat>
long live the intel
<nortti>
does z80 also have the same limitation as 8080 where all memory access is register-indirect?
<nortti>
oh, nvm, apparently 8080 already removed that limitation – was thinking of 8008
<Ermine>
nortti: it happened long before vaxen. First copied system was system/360
moberg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
alpha2023 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
epony has joined #osdev
yo0O0o has joined #osdev
xenos1984 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
xenos1984 has joined #osdev
bauen1 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
gxt has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dude12312414 has joined #osdev
helene has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
helene has joined #osdev
gxt has joined #osdev
dude12312414 has quit [Client Quit]
FireFly has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
brynet has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
FireFly has joined #osdev
brynet has joined #osdev
LittleFox has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
LittleFox has joined #osdev
<geist>
nortti: dunno, i think 8080 has that. there's a M register you indirect through i think
<geist>
HL on z80 iirc.
<nortti>
oh okay, wikipedia had "Whereas the 8008 required the use of the HL register pair to indirectly access its 14-bit memory space, the 8080 added addressing modes to allow direct access to its full 16-bit memory space." which made me presume you had absolute addressing
<geist>
oh oh yeah i thin you're right. there is an absolute mode
<geist>
but normal access to some memory address you compute you do via loading a reg and then indirecting through it
<geist>
z80 added some indexed indirect modes (X and Y register)
frkazoid333 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<nortti>
the intel 8-bit designs are quite interesting as someone whose 8-bit knowledge is mainly limited to 6502. very different style of design, much more about registers
<nortti>
in some way more about them than x86
<geist>
yah and 6502 really starts with 6800 style design
<geist>
6502 is like a simplified 6800, but from the same sort of pattern
<geist>
so it's sort of like intel vs motorola designs from that era
<nortti>
what simplifications did they do? don't really know much about 8-bit motorola chips either
<geist>
less registers, 6800 had two accumulators, A and B
<geist>
think it had more flexible addressing modes
xenos1984 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<geist>
note this is *not* 68000 which came along a lot later
FreeFull has quit [Quit: rebooting]
<geist>
pretty similar though. 6502 was started by some guys that left motorola to build a cheaper competing design
<nortti>
right
FreeFull has joined #osdev
<nortti>
68k seems like a pretty strong embrace of the big-iron CISC design style
<nortti>
though dunno how much of that was there with the initial 68000
<geist>
most of it was there from the get go. even if you consider it a 16 bit arch (that's how wide the ALU was) it had ful 32bit registers, etc
xenos1984 has joined #osdev
bauen1 has joined #osdev
netbsduser has joined #osdev
<sbalmos>
man, now you've got me missing playing with the 6812 back in college
exark has quit [Quit: quit]
exark has joined #osdev
<mcrod>
i want to emulate an apple II
<nortti>
linapple is apparently a pretty good emulator for it
<epony>
mcrod, take an Orange ][ next year
<epony>
Apple ][ was 6502, you can find emulators for it.. including the bugs and the undescript calls and flags
<epony>
but if you really really want to have fun with the 2024 Orange ][, you need to find the undescript hidden and remote "unlockable" control part os the whyPayPhones from the last 5+ generations (years)
* epony
notes the plain sight visible curse mark on your fruit campaign ;-)
<nortti>
has epony ever made a comment here that makes sense?
<epony>
nah, it's just vile snake spit aginst imperialism
<heat>
no
<epony>
wars and such crimes against humanity..
<heat>
i have them ignored since they offended me
<epony>
well, don't partake in such a system, then
<epony>
make it better, improve designs etc, there are many many ways to fix things.. as with micro-computers.. for 45+ years
<heat>
geist, yo can you explain how DMA cache coherency works and how one can know if they need to manage the cache coherency in software
<heat>
asking you cuz you've seen a lot of different SoCs
<epony>
it does not get fixed on its own, neither in newer architectures, nor in newer models, unless people work on it ;-)
<heat>
i can't tell if this depends on the architecture, platform, or device, or bus, or a mix of all of these factors
[_] has joined #osdev
[itchyjunk] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
warlock has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
<nikolar>
heat: what do you mean "manage cache coherency in software"
<nikolar>
like if dma bypasses the cache coherency mechanisms of cpus
<heat>
explicitly flushing cache lines to DRAM before issuing DMA
<nikolar>
oh yeah that too
sbalmos has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
sbalmos has joined #osdev
GeDaMo has quit [Quit: That's it, you people have stood in my way long enough! I'm going to clown college!]
gbowne1 has joined #osdev
yo0O0o has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<sortie>
It's just one of those days building ffmpeg
FireFly has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
FireFly has joined #osdev
zxrom has quit [Quit: Leaving]
netbsduser has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
zxrom has joined #osdev
\Test_User has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Turn_Left has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]