There are already so many Unix like operating systems of all sizes written in C (e.g. Minix, xv6, BSD, Darwin, Hurd, Lemon, MentOS, SanOS). If I were to go to such an effort, I would try another language, or even my own (like e.g. Bunnix written in Hare). It is meanwhile more than clear that it can be done in C. But C is not really a good programming language (weird syntax, incomplete type checking, many specification gaps, etc.), so it would actually be more interesting to explore the suitability of other languages for such a task.
As for why, a system designed to be pedantic will necessarily be different from one intending to be production ready.
Why i386 and BIOS? It is simple enough for the purpose of teaching. Inundating a student with modern x86-64, UEFI (where most implementations do not meet standards), and such is not a great idea. People just get overwhelmed and shut down. It may be worthwhile to start with something simpler honestly, like DOS and 8088, or even CP/M and 8080. Working one up through time exposes the individual to simpler things and then progressively more complex things. It is useful.
As a side benefit, teaching people about these older things instructs them on how and why things came to be the way they are which may help create better entrepreneurs.
What change do you refer to?
Concerning C: C has obviously proven itself in countless system and embedded projects of all sizes. Nevertheless, C essentially represents the state of knowledge of the early seventies. Projects like the one discussed would be a good opportunity to test newer languages for their suitability for operating system and embedded development, without the pressure of a commercial project.
> Why i386 and BIOS? It is simple enough for the purpose of teaching.
Agree; that's also one of the reasons operating systems like xv6 dedicated for teaching do so; I'm therefore interested in how Fiwix positions itself in relation to xv6.
This target was sufficiently interesting to the people who pursued it. It doesn't have to meet your arbitrary standards.
Oh, for sure, one would learn an awful lot working with those technologies, but as soon as one wished to work on more modern systems, one would have to forgot all of the former and all the ugly of the latter.
This isn't really a criticism, more an expression of puzzlement. Normally, I'm a pretty good contrarian, but I don't get it.
True, there was this Finn who did this some time ago and it worked out pretty well, but I still don't get why anyone would start with i386 and BIOS.
Nothing wrong with this IMO. You dont want a 64-bit Arm/x86 hegemony. If the OS is designed properly you won't notice the platform underneath which means you have the right abstractions. That is an important challenge for students - decoupling platform dependency from the OS architecture. It also teaches them older tech which gives them a history lesson so they understand how and why we got here.
https://bootstrappable.org/ https://lwn.net/Articles/983340/
