Minimal OSs

Hello, lain. I'm looking for interesting OSs that I can try. I want something minimal and that most of the things that I want, I'd have to write it myself(besides the basic OS stuff). Most famous OSs have almost everything I already want and that, for me, demotivate me to try to program it myself. TempleOS seems interesting, but I don't know if it's possible to write GUI stuffs on it. Does someone know good OS that don't have many software written for it? Then again, as long as it has a C compiler or whatnot, most thing are already ported to it, I guess.

>>53617 Install FreeDOS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpKoh-AabTM&list=PLzuACU-W7Omo3VEnMKuM0IPupdOHFDzL3&index=1

Im not sure if minix counts or not, also tinycore linux can fit on 16mb if im not mistaken. Let me know if you find anything cool, id love something to tinker around with.

>>53617 Just because an OS already has what you want doesn't mean you can't still make it yourself, and using a more common OS like Void Linux or OpenBSD means that support is easier to find if you get stuck.

>>53624 Point is that I feel more motivated to make it when I don't have the choice. That is how it works for me. I'd not be looking for minimal OS if I could just use Linux.

>>>>>53618 I've used FreeDOS (not OP) and I like it a lot, just dont see how I can get audio to work since its technically meant for ancient hardware that I dont have.

>>53617 9front's always looking for (competent) devs. It depends on what you want to program.

>>53631 instead of freedos try DOSBOX, more of a virtual machine, but can run what freedos does natively almost

>>53633 9front? You mean Plan9?

>>53633 What are they looking for? 9front seems interesting, at least.

>>53641 >9front it's a plan9 fork.

>>53617 >TempleOS not usable in real desktop because of hardware compatibility. OpenBSD isn't actually minimal. Maybe os size is small, but it came with many pre-installed softwares. >9front >Alpine are kinda usable and minimal for me.

>>53617 https://wiki.osdev.org/Projects is exactly what you are looking for. you could also try bootstrapping one of the hundreds of amateur x86 kernels in github and start from there if you want to start from the "beginning".

>>54179 Thank you, Lain. That is perfect.

I'm surprised at the completion of Haiku. It has all essential programs for normal using for me. unexpected.

>>53617 HyperbolaBSD needs you

>>53617 I've heard about Exherbo, it might interest you. It's from some of the guys that used to develop Gentoo. It has a different package manager (Paludis). They expect the users to take part in the development.

>>53623 >tinycore linux can fit on 16mb if im not mistaken 7MB RAM without a GUI and I hover around 100mb using using netsurf and openoffice. I would for sure start with TCL and their approach with filesystem overlays and busybox (toybox is what I go for) if one was wanting to play with minimal modern distributions. Unfortunately they seem to be having issues with the wiki and installer doesn't have the GUI install option for me but its easy enough to add a DE post install. Ive had other issues with their build tools and to be honest never wasted any time trying to make it work. NetBSD is a great second. Guix isnt exactly a minimal OS but I think its an important mention for it's ability to rollback generations of your system config, and bit for bit reproducable binaries and entire systems. You can make an extremely minimal and hackable OS but id recommend having a build system in place if you plan on using an extremely low end system. I run guix on an old single core 256MB ram laptop and it is a great little terminal / ssh thing, but I dont think it would be practical to expect it to build the image its running. If the whole goal is to make a minimal system yourself by building your own software and gain a better understanding of how your computer works, unironically install Gentoo or even better LFS.

>>53617 OpenIndiana, RISC OS, FreeDOS, and MINIX.

>guys i want a minimal OS >it has to have a C compiler

>>55452 >doesn't have a C compiler I know the first thing your going to build then. Virtually all systems software is written in C. Want to self-host your OS? Want to use software written by anyone else ever? You can have a relatively unexpanded OS without a C compiler, that isn't self-hosted. Why would you want to? I think most people want to enjoy hacking on something. Not having 'nothing'

>>53617 I'm surprised to see Collapse OS hasn't been mentioned yet: http://collapseos.org >Then again, as long as it has a C compiler or whatnot, most thing are already ported to it, I guess. Don't ask for a minimal operating system, and then turn around and ask for UNIX. >>55463 >Virtually all systems software is written in C. Coincidentally, virtually all systems software is garbage. >Want to self-host your OS? Want to use software written by anyone else ever? Use Forth. Collapse OS was written in an assembler language, and then later ported to Forth.

>>55452 >>55465 I never asked for a C compiler, I said that when it has a C compiler, then most things are already ported so there is no reason for me to try to create them. I asked for one that I could write things my own, so clearly I'll avoid ones that already have a C compiler because those will already have stuff ported to them.

>>55465 Also, Collapse OS seems interesting, thank you.

Arch Linux is very lightweight out of the box.

>>56839 >Arch Linux >Linux >GNU >systemd >minimal Arch Linux is bloat. You should use plan 9, openbsd,

>>56839 toppest of lels fellow /g/ user