From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ee887b7593f7961b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada OS based on Minix3
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <5420dcaf-b3b6-4fff-9134-de1855280f9b@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <ed7d1ea9-bf0b-4e4a-b317-b57102853d65@p35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
	<4919431e$1@news.post.ch> <491967de$0$32371$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
	<491973b6$0$32664$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1226414120 8823 127.0.0.1 (11 Nov 2008 14:35:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:35:20 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12)
	Gecko/20070718 Red Hat/1.5.0.12-3.el5 Firefox/1.5.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2651
Date: 2008-11-11T06:35:20-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Peter C. Chapin schrieb:
> > Martin Krischik wrote:
>
>>> Now, if I wanted to create an OS I would not target real hardware at
>>> all. At least not in the beginning. I would probably implement the OS
>>> inside a VMware virtual machine.
>
>> What about targeting a hypervisor like Xen? If I understand correctly
>> (and I may not) that would separate the OS somewhat from the real
>> hardware and may help its portability in the long run.
>
> How could separation from the hardware do better than a
> Microkernel such as Minix 3?
>
> Full virtualization also deprives you of access to
> a larger set of hardware. Which, I'd speculate, is not
> too helpful when targetting mostly embedded system?

Georg, how do you know the OP wants to target embedded systems?

I personally think targetting Xen is a nice long-term goal because it
is unrealistic to think people will run an Ada operating system on a
dedicated machine. However, requiring that developers use and develop
on Xen might hinder adoption. It is better to do the initial
development targetting qemu or equivalent because, as Georg mentioned,
it lowers the barrier for contributors. After the kernel boots and
gains critical mass (i.e. becomes usable), comes time to think about
Xen and real hardware. BTW, this is exactly what Lovelace does --
hint, hint :)

--
Ludovic Brenta.