On 24/05/2013 18:57, Welcome, Traiano wrote: > You appear not to realize that to even begin working with one of the existing > projects, you'd best have a solid understanding of OSes to begin with, > which brings up an interesting catch -22 that goes something like: > > "You can't join the club, because you don't know enough. You can't know > enough 'till you join our club".
Not at all - it all depends on how strongly you wish to do it and how much time you can devote to it. It won't be easy. Documentation is basically the source, and people have no time to help you or guide you (nor can you expect them to since they are mostly volunteers and have their own lives to live - this is why Julian suggested a uni which is paid to teach you). The usual way things like this work (and which I've taken, as well as most people here that I know) is that you begin at one subsystem, write something in it, then if you feel the need expand to subystems connected to that one, and repeat if necessary. If you wish to be productive, you could ask for a suggestion of such subsystems which could be easy-ish to begin with. > I don't accept the conjecture that modern OSes are too big for one man. > Modern OSes and their associated entourage of userpace and plugin modules > maybe, but not the basic kernel/supervisor program. An OS is as big or small > as you make it. Oh yes they are. The most you can hope for if you try to do it yourself is to write an "example" OS kernel which will do the few things you yourself are able to do, or even realize that they need to be done. The usual way THAT works is that as you go along you find out how the seemingly simple thing you thought needs to be done is only a small part of what is really needed, or completely insufficient, and that to solve the problem correctly, you need another 5 years to work at it - and there is a LOT of problems like that. Ask Matt Dillon [NHF, respect] :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
