Posts: 6,419
Threads: 74
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:McClouth Qbinux is a Linux distribution made completly from scratch. It has the aim of integrating the work of the vast community of free software developers at Pete's QBASIC Site in order to create a modern, performant, safe and easy to use system for system administrators and desktop users that don't mind using a DOS based system
<--
I don't get this. Is this Linux or a QB Gui running on top of MSDOS?
Posts: 245
Threads: 25
Joined: Sep 2005
Although it wouldnt an OS, but one close to it, you could tome something like free basic and write an installation program that installs it with the QBOS, and have freedos automaticly go to the QBOS compiled into an EXE file.
-yah
Posts: 6,419
Threads: 74
Joined: Mar 2002
Then this ain't Linux at all, or what?
Posts: 245
Threads: 25
Joined: Sep 2005
No idea. :???: :???:
-yah
Posts: 108
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
I think that what Seb has been working on is porting the Linux source to Qbasic.
Quote: it still has to run under DOS. but, then again microsoft did that with win95/98 and still called it an OS
This is a misconception. Win9x is merely loaded from a DOS environment. WIN.COM loads some of the Win9x kernel, switches the proccessor into 32 bit protected mode, and from then on it does not interface with 16 bit dos code (with the obvious exception of DOS programs run in v86 mode in a virtual machine). It uses it own device drivers that differ a great deal from DOS drivers. Windows 3.1 when run on a 386 or newer proccessor behaved similarly, although it used protected mode with 16 bit code.
The entire DOS operating system is actually smaller than many boot loaders used in other operating systems.
Posts: 6,419
Threads: 74
Joined: Mar 2002
Quote:I think that what Seb has been working on is porting the Linux source to Qbasic.
Good luck maing QBasic load & run ~40mb of source code.
Posts: 6
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2006
I'm still pretty much a newbie a Qbasic, but I've herd from alot of people it's impossible to make a real OS strictly out of QB. I would like to see your acomplishments. Mabey you could do a kernal of some sort out of pure assembly mixed with a littel c++. Is it possible to incorporate QB into this new combination??
ne man's trash is another man's treasure" To some people old 386 computers, and thier slow techonology is useless, too me, it's just something else to tinker with.
Posts: 6,419
Threads: 74
Joined: Mar 2002
No, 'cause QB relies on its runtime to execute every BASIC command in your program, and the runtime relies on MSDOS interrupts to work (open a file, reserve memory, free memory, init graphic mode, etcetera).
You could of course write a QB program which generates a bunch of numbers (i.e. machine code) with a boot sequence, but what would be the point of it, anyway? you have to write the boot code in assembly anyway
Posts: 6
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2006
OK.. I have an idea, but not for me. Mabey some of you "guru" programmers can learn assembly code and make your programmer code. "Thus not using runtimes's". That way we could not only use it to write programs, we could mabey use it one day to write a OS?
ne man's trash is another man's treasure" To some people old 386 computers, and thier slow techonology is useless, too me, it's just something else to tinker with.
Posts: 2,765
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2002
I'm pretty sure then it wouldn't be called QBASIC.. I believe I speak for everyone here when I say.. We have no reason to create an OS. There's no point right now.. There's Linux, BSD, DOS, NT, etc. There are tons more.. what would making another accomplish?
You have better luck using FreeBASIC to create an OS than QBASIC.
*yawns* Hope that made sense, *packs his bags for his trip to Switzerland tomorrow*
![[Image: sig.php]](http://josh.whtiger.net/images/sig.php)
Back by popular demand!
I will byte and nibble you bit by bit until nothing remains but crumbs.
