[bakul]

How does this compare with https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64 ? From its README.md:

rxv64 is a pedagogical operating system written in Rust that targets multiprocessor x86_64 machines. It is a reimplementation of the xv6 operating system from MIT.

[o8vm]

octox is also different in that the kernel, userland, mkfs, and build system are all implemented in Rust, and I think it is also different at the type level, for example, octox using mpmc for Pipe, and using OnceLock and LazyLock for static variable initialization.

[bakul]

Thanks. rxv64 kernel (the much harder part), syslib and ulib are in rust. Replacing userland C with rust would not be hard. Ideally a general purpose OS should support programs written in any of the common programming languages so it would make sense to have some programs in another language to keep the OS API "honest"!

[o8vm]

octox aims to provide a user library similar to Rust’s std, but implementing it is somewhat difficult.

[snvzz]

I immediately notice that o8vm targets RISC-V, whereas rxv64 targets a legacy ISA.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Is it really a "legacy" ISA if it's actively developed by two different companies (and will be for a long time to come) and is utterly dominant in servers, desktops, and laptops today?

[snvzz]

You're right in that it is still actively developed by two different companies, and that it is still utterly dominant in servers, desktops, and laptops... today.

Perhaps you would prefer "incumbent ISA"? But that would be a pointless exercise, because RISC-V is inevitable, and the new industry standard.

The intent was to express "not RISC-V" anyway. The parent already specifies which.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Perhaps you would prefer "incumbent ISA"?

I wouldn't mind that.

> But that would be a pointless exercise, because RISC-V is inevitable, and the new industry standard.

Er. So even if the second part of the sentence were true, calling out the current leader isn't pointless. And the second part of your claim is very much not a foregone conclusion; RISC-V is a standard, and used by the industry, but it's not in anything like a dominant enough position to call it "the industry standard", and its success is certainly not inevitable - RISC-V is today where MIPS was a decade ago (cheap, modestly popular in embedded, lacking in high-end parts, not popular outside of embedded). Now, its trajectory is upwards, it has enough going for it that it could become extremely popular, and certainly I'd like an Open Source option to win - but that's just one possibility, and history is littered with ISAs that were supposed to be the Next Big Thing.

[snvzz]

>is very much not a foregone conclusion

It may very well be by now. RISC-V already has the momentum behind it.

The investment is there, and it's huge, both from governments and private. Major design wins. Multiple incoming very high performance implementations from multiple vendors.

On the software side, I have never seen a new architecture's software ecosystem grow as quickly as RISC-V's has.

>history is littered with ISAs that were supposed to be the Next Big Thing

You're well aware how RISC-V is better suited for success. Both technical, and non-technical aspects. It has the mojo.

I remember when PowerPC and ARM got their moments. This is an order of magnitude bigger. No ISA has ever managed to rally this much support, broad and wide. It's not even close.

I'm telling you: x86 is finally going down.

RISC-V is inevitable.

[cross]

Probably true. Porting rxv64 to RISC-V probably wouldn't be that big of a lift, honestly.

[stockerta]

After Rust fanboys, the other annoying ones are Risc-V fanboys.