Talk:Getting Started

Idle comment

Suggestion removed due to copyright claims - Combuster 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean create a Toolsets page and discuss the options there, while generalizing Getting Started? Sounds good to me. --Alboin

At one side, that is politically correct. However, there is by my knowledge no substitute being as complete, powerful, tried, and universally available as gcc/binutils. I think we can fairly say that a different C compiler is "use at your own risk". I don't expect people to figure out the issues with FreeBasic as osdev targeted compiler. I think we should look for a middle road - Combuster 12:38, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Merging in Prerequisites

It seems to me that the above page could become a section within this page, in a sort of 'mental requirements' section, like the Getting motivated bit we already have here. Yayyak 06:21, 17 August 2007 (CDT) If nobody has any objections, I'll do it tomorrow (Sept 3 2007). Yayyak 21:40, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

GNU slant

This page is misleading (as many on this site are) slanted toward a disadvantage of Windows users while suggesting a requirement of GNU tools for OSDEV. This is accurate for cross architecture development but not x86 development where 99% of Windows developers will be working. Most any Windows based native compiler can be used for OSDEV, compiling is not the problem, linking is the difficulty. I've ported my OS for compilation with Borland tools, MSVC and Watcom. Open Watcom's wlink is the best linker I've encountered for Windows. It's not a cross architecture compiler but does produce flat binaries, ELF, PE, MZ, Phar Lap, etc and will link the output from nearly any Windows based compiler. JLOC is another option but it doesn't like borland's OMF format.

This unsigned comment was made by User:Tantrikwizard; please remember to sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~

Having a bias towards GNU tools does not automatically mean that it is misleading. Next to that, there are good reasons why that bias actually exists - Visual Studio alone has alwas had issues with generating the necessary formats to make a bootable image - there were always third party tools needed to make it actually work. As for watcom, it has about the smallest userbase of the common C compilers so if there are problems with it, you won't be able to readily expect answers about that compiler. If you read the article you'll notice that it is explained where that bias comes from. If you really feel that that should change, you have a reputation to make for the compiler suite or combination of tools in question as being better than GNU on Windows. Just claiming something's bad doesn't help when there's no good alternative.

- Combuster 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The other thing: because most people know GCC, they can answer newbie's questions about gcc when they come to the forum with error messages. There are a number of cases where people come to the forum with "I use my friend's dad's programmer friend's linker, and I have this error message. What does it mean? What do I need to do?". There are a lot less ums and ahs when they ask about gcc. If you're going to be supporting something, recommend the something you know about.

Jackscott 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for a certain bias pro GNU toolchain are the same as for using C/C++, Intel syntax ASM (sadly, IMHO), or for this Wiki being in English: It certainly improves your chances of getting help (and makes life easier for the OSDev citizenry).

That's what is being said at the beginning of the chapter, too - "The GNU toolset is generally recognised as the best for OSDev".

That being said, I don't see a problem with the article as it is now. -- Solar 14:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Common starting points

The section says, "Some of the best introductory material is included in the tutorial section at the bottom of the page." However, there is no "tutorial section" at the bottom of the page. Should this contain a summary of some material from Tutorials? I find it confusing. Sidewaysmilk 04:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. (Why did this remain unaddressed for so long?) -- Solar 05:56, 4 June 2012 (CDT)