4 ms·

It appears to be extremely bare bone. For example the TCP socket is like UDP with hard coded IP addresses. It won't handle any packet reordering or lost packets

by nn3 8y ago

It appears to be extremely bare bone. For example the TCP socket is like UDP with hard coded IP addresses. It won't handle any packet reordering or lost packets. I haven't checked other parts, but if they are like that it would be more a very elaborate demo than something actually usable. Still impressive even for a demo.

benj111 8y ago
How would you bring up an OS? Implementing the bare minimum for each subsystem until everything is working and you're happy with it, seems preferable to spending 6 months on TCP sockets, then having to rewrite when it doesn't fit in with anything else.
akling 8y ago
Your observations are of course accurate: many parts of the system are indeed quite bare-bones. I've been trying to bring up a huge number of subsystems in parallel by building enough of the scaffolding and infrastructure in each area for a larger system to grow around. Now for the rest of my life, I will always have something to hack on. :)
- arbie 8y ago
  > Now for the rest of my life, I will always have something to hack on. :) This is such an inspiring and humbling sentiment! Thank you for all your hard work on this impressive project.
  - ngcc_hk 8y ago
    Totally agree. Hat off.
acqq 8y ago
> it would be more a very elaborate demo than something actually usable. Depending of the definition of "usable." It's surely usable for anybody who wants to learn the basic ideas. It's written from the scratch, and just a small part of the whole system. To get the idea how the networking stack were introduced to the famous systems see, for example, how may people were involved in creating the Windows networking stack with TCP/IP, at the moment the already had other kinds of networking, and as Berkeley sockets already existed for years: "The idea for Windows Sockets was first proposed by JSB's Martin Hall at a Birds Of a Feather session at Fall Interop in San Jose in September 1991. Around 40 companies were formative members of the Windows Sockets group. Representatives from these companies gathered in Seattle in December 1991 to debate and resolve the basis of Windows Sockets. Considerable effort between then and January 1993, which involved a substantial amount of Internet-based email discussion, together with several meetings and 2 interoperability testing sessions (WinSockathons) led to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets specification which is the definitive reference point for Windows Sockets today. WinSockathon II proved that Windows Sockets 1.1 is a viable standard for application/network implementation interoperability."
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Back then it was just a protocol among many. On 16 bit platforms, we needed to buy it as additional software package.
  - ngcc_hk 8y ago
    Still remember learning a tcpip stack call Wollongong something. It is the best. I totally agree with the author to do the minimum otherwise just one part can delay all.
    - acqq 8y ago
      http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-10-1995/swol-10-tcp.html http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-10-1995/swol-10-... "Comparing TCP/IP products for PCs" "PathWay Access 3.2 (The Wollongong Group)" ... "The PathWay product installed more easily than all the rest. We found it amusing that Wollongong managed to squeeze its software into five disks while others needed up to 15 disks for essentially the same software"
pushpop 8y ago
That is the right way to build a hobby project of this magnitude in my opinion. Rapidly MVP as much as you can do you have something usable. Then go back and refine the warts as and when they become a nuisance.

by nn3 8y ago

benj111 8y ago

How would you bring up an OS? Implementing the bare minimum for each subsystem until everything is working and you're happy with it, seems preferable to spending 6 months on TCP sockets, then having to rewrite when it doesn't fit in with anything else.

akling 8y ago

Your observations are of course accurate: many parts of the system are indeed quite bare-bones. I've been trying to bring up a huge number of subsystems in parallel by building enough of the scaffolding and infrastructure in each area for a larger system to grow around. Now for the rest of my life, I will always have something to hack on. :)

arbie 8y ago
> Now for the rest of my life, I will always have something to hack on. :) This is such an inspiring and humbling sentiment! Thank you for all your hard work on this impressive project.
- ngcc_hk 8y ago
  Totally agree. Hat off.

acqq 8y ago

> it would be more a very elaborate demo than something actually usable. Depending of the definition of "usable." It's surely usable for anybody who wants to learn the basic ideas. It's written from the scratch, and just a small part of the whole system. To get the idea how the networking stack were introduced to the famous systems see, for example, how may people were involved in creating the Windows networking stack with TCP/IP, at the moment the already had other kinds of networking, and as Berkeley sockets already existed for years: "The idea for Windows Sockets was first proposed by JSB's Martin Hall at a Birds Of a Feather session at Fall Interop in San Jose in September 1991. Around 40 companies were formative members of the Windows Sockets group. Representatives from these companies gathered in Seattle in December 1991 to debate and resolve the basis of Windows Sockets. Considerable effort between then and January 1993, which involved a substantial amount of Internet-based email discussion, together with several meetings and 2 interoperability testing sessions (WinSockathons) led to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets specification which is the definitive reference point for Windows Sockets today. WinSockathon II proved that Windows Sockets 1.1 is a viable standard for application/network implementation interoperability."

pjmlp 8y ago
Back then it was just a protocol among many. On 16 bit platforms, we needed to buy it as additional software package.
- ngcc_hk 8y ago
  Still remember learning a tcpip stack call Wollongong something. It is the best. I totally agree with the author to do the minimum otherwise just one part can delay all.
  - acqq 8y ago
    http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-10-1995/swol-10-tcp.html http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-10-1995/swol-10-... "Comparing TCP/IP products for PCs" "PathWay Access 3.2 (The Wollongong Group)" ... "The PathWay product installed more easily than all the rest. We found it amusing that Wollongong managed to squeeze its software into five disks while others needed up to 15 disks for essentially the same software"

pushpop 8y ago

That is the right way to build a hobby project of this magnitude in my opinion. Rapidly MVP as much as you can do you have something usable. Then go back and refine the warts as and when they become a nuisance.