4 ms·

Because that's like teaching perl cgi in a web dev course. Sure you can do a lot, but that's not relevant to today's tech, does not give them any practical expe

Because that's like teaching perl cgi in a web dev course. Sure you can do a lot, but that's not relevant to today's tech, does not give them any practical experience on real world architectures, and is very limited as to what they can achieve if they want to go further. As a final note, I find it rather annoying that the web is flooded of articles on how to create a basic bootloader/kernel in real mode and using the BIOS, while there is a clear lack of good introductory articles on how to create minimalistic kernels using a stack like Core boot, uefi, TianoCore, long mode

josteink 9y ago
Agree about the lack of writeups for modern architectures. For UEFI, I believe this article here has been posted on HN before: http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-programming/hello.html http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-programming/hello.html A quick result yields various results across the internet: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=uefi+bootloader+hello+world&t=ffip&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=uefi+bootloader+hello+world&t=ffip...
userbinator 9y ago
Because that's like teaching perl cgi in a web dev course. "perl cgi" can be not used at all, but today's x86 machines still boot in realmode and you can already do a lot of interesting things there. while there is a clear lack of good introductory articles on how to create minimalistic kernels using a stack like Core boot, uefi, TianoCore That could be explained by the massive increase in complexity that UEFI entails compared to BIOS. Presumably it is only after you have gotten everything working with the BIOS that will prepare you to tackle UEFI; but speaking as someone with many years of experience with the former, and even read the BIOS source listings from the original IBM manuals, the UEFI spec was still ridiculously dense and if I were writing my own OS I would definitely choose the BIOS. Related reading from someone who has written his own, now rather famous, OS: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html

josteink 9y ago

Agree about the lack of writeups for modern architectures. For UEFI, I believe this article here has been posted on HN before: http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-programming/hello.html http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-programming/hello.html A quick result yields various results across the internet: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=uefi+bootloader+hello+world&t=ffip&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=uefi+bootloader+hello+world&t=ffip...

userbinator 9y ago

Because that's like teaching perl cgi in a web dev course. "perl cgi" can be not used at all, but today's x86 machines still boot in realmode and you can already do a lot of interesting things there. while there is a clear lack of good introductory articles on how to create minimalistic kernels using a stack like Core boot, uefi, TianoCore That could be explained by the massive increase in complexity that UEFI entails compared to BIOS. Presumably it is only after you have gotten everything working with the BIOS that will prepare you to tackle UEFI; but speaking as someone with many years of experience with the former, and even read the BIOS source listings from the original IBM manuals, the UEFI spec was still ridiculously dense and if I were writing my own OS I would definitely choose the BIOS. Related reading from someone who has written his own, now rather famous, OS: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/efi.html