Dawn operating system

[cyberfish]

cyberfish - a modern x86 cpu can do as many instructions per clock as many pipelines does it have. if it have 2 pipeline, it can do 2, if it have 4, it can do maximum 4 (in most cases, in theory). the same applies to subleq and arm. modern arm cpus have 3 pipelines. having more pipelines than 1 called superscalar design, and you can put ugly amouts of pipelines into a subleq cpu too if you want, more than into a very complex x86. the question is of course, how much you can effectively add to keep the things easy and effective.

having more pipelines will incrase the alu size, and that decrases the clock. so there should be a sweet spot.

if you say 50 ghz is not possible, you probably have right, maybe i will erase these datas from the website, becouse i dont want to advertise with bullshit

Yes, but a subleq CPU would be very difficult to make super-scalar because of both branching and data dependencies (all in memory due to lack of registers, which means you can't do register renaming). And like I mentioned before, how many instructions you can execute per second isn't important. How much useful work you can do per second is.

A subleq CPU would have a much simpler decoder and ALU than a conventional CPU, but those circuits don't take up most of the silicon area on modern processors anyways - most of the area is used for memory, which a subleq CPU would also need. Cost of a CPU mostly depends on silicon area. A subleq CPU also won't run much faster since the subleq instruction is a pretty complicated instruction by RISC standards. How fast you can clock a CPU doesn't depend on how many instructions you have - it depends mostly on your most complicated instruction.

So you have a CPU that's slightly cheaper, clocked at about the same speed, but has an extremely inefficient instruction set that requires multiple instructions to do anything useful.

When you have a "revolutionary idea" for an alternative way of doing anything, it's always a good idea to try to find out WHY people do things the current way. Is it because all the Intel and ARM CPU designers are stupid and don't know you can have a Turing-complete CPU with one instruction? Or do they know, but chose to design their instruction sets with many instructions? What are those reasons? Hint: it's not because they are stupid.

Now you can say you have different priorities and decided to take a different tradeoff - for example, you can say you really like the simplicity of having a CPU with just one instruction, and you are willing to take a 100x performance penalty for it. That would be perfectly valid.

Saying you can get a 100x SPEEDUP is delusional.

The reason why your code is so slow is not because it's running on an emulated CPU. Emulating a very simple CPU like subleq is very easy, and the slowdown should be no more than 5x at worst. That means on a modern Intel CPU, you should be getting the emulated speed of a 2010-era Intel CPU. It's clearly much much worse than that.

No, the real reason it's so slow is because the instruction set is horribly inefficient at actually getting things done.

[Geri]

 cyberfish: ,,most of the area is used for memory'' - most of the area in your bike is used by the frame, but you dont bring yourself 300 kilograms of potato just becouse ,,most of the area is used by the frame aniway''.
also my platform does not need sound chip (1-2% of regular cpu die), ethernet chip (1-2% of regular cpu die), DSP-s (5%), interrupt controller (5%), dma controller (5%), graphics acceleration (30%).
it needs cache, memory, access for polling based device management. and of course the cpu cores itself, which you can insert a few 1000 from while you still optimized down 50% of the die. or you can do far smaller or larger designs as you wish.

Emulating a very simple CPU like subleq is very easy, and the slowdown should be no more than 5x at worst.

no, at worst its like 40-50x less efficient if you emulate it. however if you use dynarec/jit methods, you can go up to 15-20% efficiency - which i didnt implemented, becouse i dont have experience in that, but if you have, you can write a very efficient emulator, and you can see it yourself. actually this thing is not a theory, you actually have the OS itself to play with, you can see your calculations yourself.

[Geri]

amspire: to access internet, you have to implement multiple layers




every layer is disasterous in some ways, and every one of them is highly undocumented. a tcp stack is 10x larger than my OS itself alone, becouse its designed to be that - a complex, impenetrable technology that limits your freedom, and places your communication in the hands of a few large corporation supported by governmental agencies. if it would be so simple, everybody would build internet devices, meanwhile there is only a few chip design available to be widely used. did you even wondered, if its so cheap, open, simple, and free, why it is costs 20 usd per month to pay for the internet? becouse its not.

[ataradov]

What are you talking about? Everything is pretty well documented in RFCs. The reason that TCP stack is bigger than your OS is that it is actually useful for something.

Your desire to build minimalist systems is great, but you can't just randomly drop features that you don't know or understand how to implement.

[Geri]

MK14: the only limitation is in the free version is that will not be able to use more than 8 cores, i think this is a fair and beneficial limitation for both me and the costumers.

[Geri]

ataradov, if the internet networking is so greatly free, why dont you create a device from sctratch that can connect to the internet ?

i will not copypaste untrustable and unrealible codes to my systems just to support something unnecessary. people if want, they write a browser for example, and add they own tcp stack, its they problem, not mine. an operating system is not a must have to obtain a tcp stack. it will be not added.

[Geri]

free_electron: ,,mr dictator'' refuses to add technologies that allows corporations to get control above you in his operating system, and tells the people to do everything on they own in they softwares, but will not add bloatwares in the OS. if that makes me a dictator, well then i am a very good dictator.

[ataradov]

ataradov, if the internet networking is so greatly free, why dont you create a device from sctratch that can connect to the internet ?

Your logic is broken here. First of all, I don't need a device that connects to the internet. Why would I make things from scratch, when there are other people that make things I can just use? Also, define "from scratch". Should I start from collecting sand to make my silicon?

I'm not saying that making TCP/IP stack is easy, it is not. That's why we use reusable code and standard implementations. I let professionals implement this stuff, and I will think about and work on stuff I care about.

[Geri]

oh, so why people even made computers, when they were the ENIAC alreday available?

[ataradov]

oh, so why people even made computers, when they were the ENIAC alreday available?

Because there was a clearly justified increase in performance. With this thing we don't have any increase in performance. The only benefit to your system is that you can understand how it works. This is of no benefit to anyone but you.

ARM instruction "mov R0, [R1 + #5]" is executed in a single cycle. Show us implementation of this in your system.

My turn to ask questions: why sun is yellow when ocean is deep?

[nugglix]

atradov, of course you've to start making a universe... FROM NOTHING!!!

In general, to tell the 800% truth: I can see into the future.
I can see a closed thread and a high chance for a banned user in a future not to far...       

[Zbig]

also my platform does not need sound chip (1-2% of regular cpu die), ethernet chip (1-2% of regular cpu die)

x86 CPUs contain neither "sound chip" nor "ethernet chip". If you think that by pulling arbitrary numbers out of your ass you hide the fact that you have very little idea what you're talking about, you're doing pretty terrible job at it.

[MK14]

MK14: the only limitation is in the free version is that will not be able to use more than 8 cores, i think this is a fair and beneficial limitation for both me and the costumers.

If that means that, larger numbers of cores, such as 20,000 cores, can't be played around with while emulating it and/or that it is closed source. I.e. we CAN'T see or change the source code. Then I'm not happy with the situation.

Even if ALL versions are made free and open source. I still have grave concerns about some of he claims being made about this product.

It is a bit like someone writes a Chess program, which plays a reasonable game of Chess, compared to a beginner. But who then claims it is the best Chess program in the world and charges >£20's worth of bitcoins for it.

Have you managed to sell many copies of your OS yet ?

[Geri]

ataradov: its like i am making a bicycle but you want a roller, and you are asking why this bicycle is a bicycle and not a roller. there is not much in common, both have wheels, but it will not be a roller, it will be a bicycle.

[Zbig]

Also, there are people who wrote their own TCP stack for fun and giggles on this very forum. You have to understand the simple fact that YOU don't understand something doesn't mean it's some secret knowledge NOBODY has.

[ataradov]

and you are asking why this bicycle is a bicycle and not a roller

No, I (and we all here) ask you to justify any of the numbers you are throwing around here. There are a lot of people here working in the industry that know what they are talking about, and your claims don't make sense. That's why we are asking for some evidence.

We don't need an emulator to judge thing "by eye". Give use examples of the code mapping between traditional instructions, and your instructions, and explain how they are better.

[Geri]

MK14: yes, i sold one copy today from the operating system

(also, bad example: i wrote a stand-alone chess program once, it was very-far from the best chess programs on the world, but i still asked money for it, becouse i worked with it, i put effort to it, i put effort advertising it, and sold copies from it. thats how capitalism works, i am sorry, but there is no great loving soviet states any more, i also have to buy food in the store, etc etc.)

also if somebody will not be able to manufacture a 20 000 core chip just becouse he have to pay ~15 usd equivalent dogecoin for the software, i would automatically assume that he is maybe not a person who could be taken seriously.

[ataradov]

MK14: yes, i sold one copy today from the operating system

Dude, c'mon, stop lying.

[Geri]

Zbig: tcp stack alone is a years of sucking, also by doing it you still just have 10% of the work done. basically if its a lifetime to do a fully working networking, maybe that networking standard sucks and not me. if it is so easy to tcp and network, you can just compile it to your software running on my OS without even bothering the thing. if.

[Monkeh]

Zbig: tcp stack alone is a years of sucking, also by doing it you still just have 10% of the work done. basically if its a lifetime to do a fully working networking, maybe that networking standard sucks and not me. if it is so easy to tcp and network, you can just compile it to your software running on my OS without even bothering the thing. if.

And because it's not easy and you don't think you can do it by yourself, it's not worth doing. That's the attitude which got us space travel! Oh, wait..

And, of course, is just going to be used by the big bads to control you.

[Geri]

MK14: yes, i sold one copy today from the operating system

Dude, c'mon, stop lying.

too bad dogecoin transactions are public

https://dogechain.info/address/DNNJJT7fmTcYHcpT4HAMLo6UyBdiusEUvi

whats the problem, it hurts your soul that i am alreday sold more from this software than you probably sold from anything together?

[ataradov]

too bad dogecoin transactions are public

Yep, and anyone can have more than one account. So fabricating a transaction like this is 2 minute work.

[Zbig]

Zbig: tcp stack alone is a years of sucking,

I prefer to code by typing but well, to each his own, I guess.

also by doing it you still just have 10% of the work done. basically if its a lifetime to do a fully working networking, maybe that networking standard sucks and not me. if it is so easy to tcp and network, you can just compile it to your software running on my OS without even bothering the thing. if.

You have a very annoying habit of throwing around made-up figures and judging everything around you by your knowledge and abilities.

[MK14]

Let me help you, by starting to write a great advert for your new OS.

Roll up, roll up, get your new mobile/cell phone OS here.

Phone conversations: Banned by OS, to protect the user from possible dictators
Any kind of internet access: Banned by OS, to protect the user from possible dictators
Sound generation by the hardware: Banned by OS to improve performance a tiny bit
...
...
...
...: Banned by OS because ...

I thought OS's were suppose to help users do what they want to do in life ?

So if you disapprove, your OS won't let me watch EEVblog's youtube videos I guess.
Since they require internet and sound access.

I think you maybe advertising your new OS in the wrong place.

tl;dr
It is up to the OS users to decide what they do in life, NOT the creator(s) of the OS.
E.g. To use the internet or not.

[Geri]

yeah, and i travelled back in time to send me a payment to justify my os on this forum.