Lilith: x86-64 OS written in Crystal

Re:Lilith: x86-64 OS written in Crystal by userbinator on Sunday December 22, 2019 @10:54PM (#21861379)

AFAIK fork() is specific to UNIX and its descendants; DOS, Windows, and many(most?) other OSs don't have it either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lilith: x86-64 OS written in Crystal by yjftsjthsd-h on Monday December 23, 2019 @12:56AM (#21861755)

Sure, but an OS that self-describes as "POSIX-like" would be expected to follow the UNIX approach to things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lilith: x86-64 OS written in Crystal by ffwff on Monday December 23, 2019 @05:53AM (#21862832)

POSIX-like, not entirely POSIX! There are basic IO syscalls, and some process management calls, but overall I try to take unix as a guideline rather than trying to reimplement one entirely. I also try to take inspiration from other kernels (like fattr (which is equivalent to GetFileAttributes from WinNT), and spawnv from DOS/WinNT).

I guess I should reword it :/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lilith: x86-64 OS written in Crystal by tyingq on Monday December 23, 2019 @06:53AM (#21863065)

Google's Fuchsia has a similar approach to Posix (no fork, signals, etc). Maybe some of their wording would be of use?

https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/docs/+/refs/changes/56/1013...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lilith: x86-64 OS written in Crystal by yjftsjthsd-h on Monday December 23, 2019 @09:43AM (#21863859)

That's fair. And to be clear, reading "POSIX-like" makes me expect it to act like a unix, but that hardly means that you should be bound to follow that exactly:) If you wanted to set expectations a bit, maybe "partially POSIX-inspired, with other influences from $FOO and $BAR" would be clearer?

[ Parent | on HN ]