LoseThos

http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=24190

In LoseThos, core 0 is master and the rest are slaves.  Also, LoseThos is for single-user home systems, not multiuser mainframes or servers. 

It is multitasking, but, for example, does not break 100 block disk reads into pieces, so drive is locked and other tasks waiting on drive starve.  I plan to keep it that way -- it's simpler.

I turn interrupts off during some parts of code AND employ a spin lock.  Conceptually, turning-off interrupts instantly gives you mutex... exclusion from other tasks (on that core).  For multicore, you need to go beyond, so I employ separate spin locks for everything.  Technically, a spin lock alone is good enough without turning-off interrutps, but, I donno, just because I think it's more efficient, I turn-off interrupts, too.  In almost all cases, applications are single core and run on core 0, so CLI provides no-waste solutions to mutual exclusion.  My spin locks Yield CPU on failure, which is unacceptible for large-number-of-tasks systems.  Go use Linux if you want that.  If you want simpler, use LoseThos.

>>31
The opposite is actually true.

What tdavis has done is reinvent the wheel, but intentionally making it square this time.  He's spent seven years of his life making an "OS" that isn't really an OS at all.  It's some kind of machine-native IDE that's supposed to imitate the old glory days of the C64's native BASIC interpreter.

Unfortunately for him, he could have just installed any variety of Linux and had something far more powerful (gcc, gdb, emacs) right out of the box, without sacrificing compatibility with every other program in existence as he has.

Seven years of his life gone, and he's still going strong on developing something that's orders of magnitude less useful than what every computer in the world already has access to, for free.