We’re unable to reply to everyone’s comment individually due to the HN’s limit of only a few comments at a time.
We’ll try to summarise it all here itself -
So we at Team Xeneva are two guys trying our best to create an OS for modern computing and hardware. Team includes Manas Kamal Choudhury from Assam, who has been developing XenevaOS since 2020 and he is responsible for most of the technical development. The project was later joined by Ayushmaan Bora who oversees the strategies & execution part of the project and is entitled to look at the professional aspects of the project. Xeneva started out as a solo hobby project by Manas but now together, the both of us are taking this project professionally.
The purpose of XenevaOS is to build an OS from scratch targeting modern hardware and modern computing. XenevaOS is not limited to just personal computing or mobile computing, we aim for extending the potential of an Operating System to multiple use cases, like Automobile, Robotics, and medical science and primarily AR/VR/XR while putting users as first priority rather user fixing software dependencies.
XenevaOS focuses on modern technology rather than carrying legacy codes and aims to have minimal software abstraction
We will try to reply to everyone’s comment individually after the timeout disappears, but till then we’re open for communication.
Our Email address - hi@getxeneva.com
For those interested to learn about the purpose, vision and goals of our project, please visit our website - getxeneva.com
This is a really impressive project, but I wish the Github page had more information about the design of the system, e.g
1. Is it intending to be a unix-like system?
2. is libc supported? I see that you have XECLib which looks like a custom libc impl?
3. What are the principles behind IPC? I see that there's "PostBox IPC" and that's how windows communicate with the window manager, but from a quick glance I'm not sure how the window manager communicates with the video driver.
4. What's the object format? I see there's docs for XELoader but it doesn't get into how it works or how the linker produces the object files that it loads.
This clearly took a ton of effort and it's a cool project!
Hello, thank you for reaching out! Yes, the GitHub repository has limited information currently, but we are working on the documentations.
- Xeneva is not intending to be Unix like, but some core principles of Unix are followed.
- Xeneva has its own libc implementation called XECLib that are attached to Xeneva's own system call interface.
- Xeneva supports IPC via shared memory, IPC via socket and IPC via its own message based communication called PostBox IPC. Xeneva currently use framebuffer for Graphics Output, no working video driver is implemented. The framebuffer is mapped onto Windows Managers address space and the Windows Manager composes the final image to framebuffer by writing to that mapped virtual address.
- Xeneva uses PE format for executable,no doubt ELF support can be implemented. XELoader is a dynamic linker and loader process which is responsible for resolving running processes symbols by linking it to its specific shared library. Whenever a new process get spawned,and an executable is loaded, the XELoader loads all required shared libraries and link them to the process.
You can refer to our website - getxeneva.com to get a hint of our future goals and vision.
The website instantly provides information that is missing from both the documentation and the github page: what is xeneva for? Now I know that it's "designed to power the next generation of modern computing across multiple platforms—from traditional systems to cutting-edge AR/VR/XR devices. We're redefining what an operating system can achieve in an era where computing extends beyond screens into spatial environments." Up till then, I had guessed it might be a hobby project, an academic learning exercise, or a playground for new OS concepts.
I still don't know what it is after reading that. What does it solve that other OS don't?
Edit: other comments seem to suggest 1.) it abandons support for older hardware and focuses on modern hardware, 2.) it's supposed to allow 3D UI, 3.) it has minimal software abstractions for performance.
I guess I can understand #1, but I'm not sure why existing OS wouldn't be able to handle #2. I'm not sure how #3 works in practice if there are a lot of different hardware architectures to support.
Thank you for commenting. We believe there does exist a market gap in places that one quickly doesn't notice. We'll drop one instance here, look at the AR/VR market. It's quite possible that AR devices will be the future so of course good software would be needed there. Apple has it's VisionOS which is decent but that will forever be limited to Apple products only. There is no proper alternative to that as of yet, although Google and Android are working on soon releasing AndroidXR. But even that is essentially just based on top of the AndroidOS. We're trying to create a robust kernel and a dedicated platform for such devices.
We also aim to work on RISC-V architecture as well so helps us cater to more utility.
Please Email us at hi@getxeneva.com to communicate further.
The linux kernel essentially provides everything a modern operating system needs, including all the necessary device drivers. Unless you offer a significant selling point, something radically different, or a substantial improvement over, say, Linux or FreeBSD, I don't see a compelling use case for Xeneva OS. That said, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great project to experiment with and take my upvote.
Early Linux was a university student having fun in his apartment learning 386 assembly, and everything onward from there was earned by merit (it just was that good). This is boasting to be "modern computing reimagined", "the future of computing", "revolutionary operating system", "designed to power the next generation of modern computing", "redefining what an operating system can achieve". Burden of proof is on a slightly different level.
Being an Open-Source, free OS was the Linux selling point, over commercial Unixes and Windows. That was the open lane with relatively little competition. Now that Linux and BSDs are there, it's no longer an empty lane but a tough one to compete in.
Granted FreeBSD could have picked up more instead, but it was almost as young and not to be due to a series of 90s decisions (BSD court case; Linux name being catchy; Linux running a bit better on 386 PCs?; GNU tools being the default?; IBM deciding to invest in Linux).
Thanks for the explanation and further background! I appreciate it. I'm still a little confused why custom OS is needed for a headset. I would have guessed you'd just need another...I forget the term for it, but on Linux you have like XFCE, Cinnamon, and KDE like GUI skins on top of the core functionality.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like they can get better performance on the target hardware with a purpose-built design. It is about more than the GUI.
While novel OSs are frequently introduced on HN, this project is rather different.
That it's built under Windows strikes me as quite an unusual feature. To their credit the developers provide sufficiently detailed build instructions that aren't too hard to follow. However the build environment is very specific. VC has a lot of configuration options, so no doubt very close attention is required to make sure everything is set up correctly.
Running the compiled system in a VM is sensible, kind of a shame though that Windows native Hyper-V isn't supported. Perhaps that will be possible in a later iteration of the OS.
Would be nice if the authors gave a rundown of how this OS compares with others out there. Without having a clear idea of this OS's features and advantages, potential contributors might feel hesitant about investing time and energy in its development.
Hello,
MSVC seems quite interesting for us. No doubt, the code can be ported to other build environment. For instance, The ARM64 version uses both the advantages of clang and MSVC. The build setup is not so hard, and once setup is completed it can be build within a click.
It's possible to run the system using Hyper-V. Required configuration are clearly mentioned in the documentation. Windows add extra security called Virtualization Based Security which needs to be disabled while running XenevaOS. Xeneva is well tested on VMware Workstation Pro and Virtual Box. We're working on real machine support, making the project to be beyond hobby os project.
XenevaOS is built from ground up with modern computing in mind. We're currently working on bringing it to XR systems (AR/VR devices). Compared to other OS, Xeneva doesn't holds legacy legacy hardware code which make it easy to focus on modern technologies. The project aims to be multi architectured, minimal abstractions in software for better performance and to put user as first priority rather than user fixing software requirements.
You can refer to our website, getxeneva.com to get a hint about our project's purpose, goals and vision!
Appreciate your reply! I am interested in trying it out, I'm familiar with MS tools so I don't think I'd have too much trouble following the procedures you've described. Glad to hear Hyper-V is an option since I've used it quite often, usually straightforward enough installing an OS.
Anyway your project sounds sufficiently different from established OSs to make me curious to see it running. However I think you're right, long-term success depends on gaining developer support to grow a large useful software catalog. Having that happen relies on having good tools available and to the extent possible clear interfaces to program against.
BTW one of the problems programming for Windows is the ungodly number of ABIs propagated by MS. AIUI MSVC is considered a legacy technology. MS encourages using UCRT, sort of modernized MSVC, and not fully compatible. Many more examples are out there.
Anyway my point is the virtue of keeping it simple, at least making it no more complicated than necessary.
Finally I'm curious about your reasons for developing on Windows. Doesn't seem the obvious or intuitive choice, but you've done well to make it work. Should be fun to try it out.
To be noticed by a large community though, a new OS needs to be different from yet another C-based POSIX-style system. We already have a lot of those which are fine enough. It would be nice to see a new OS chucking away that legacy and doing some new things, supporting Linux via a WSL-style system at most.
Xeneva is built from scratch with modern hardware and modern computing on mind. We're working on making a transitional shift from legacy systems.
You can refer to our website, getxeneva.com to get a hint about our purpose, future goals and vision!
> To be noticed by a large community though, a new OS needs to be different from yet another C-based POSIX-style system. We already have a lot of those which are fine enough.
Needs to be different
> It would be nice to see a new OS chucking away that legacy and doing some new things, supporting Linux via a WSL-style system at most.
The others read this right: New OSs should be different than yet another C-based POSIX-style system. Linux compatibility is a secondary consideration and not so important.
It used to be that Linux ecosystem compatibility was an excuse for not innovating. WSL2 proved that so long as the base design allows for virtualization, one could still support Linux decently enough. So there are no longer any excuses when one can even get lots of compatible-enough software with very little impinging on base design.
The "at most" seems to suggest they want it to be a minor part of the design - i.e. provide it as a layer if you must, but do something interesting with the base thing. It's the exact opposite of your understanding.
”Unlike traditional operating systems, XenevaOS enables holographic interfaces and real-time 3D environments that fundamentally change how we interact with digital content. Our vision is to move beyond the limitations of 2D screens into a world where computing adapts to humans, not the other way around.”
I'm always curious when new OSs seem to worry about both core functions and presentation layer concerns. Doesn't that spread development work too much?
I've tried many times writing an OS on my own but I always failed at some stage because the material online becomes scarce and it's very hard to proceed.
I saw in your Youtube channel that you're very young, may I ask you about your journey to achieve something like this?
Many of the files I checked have a 2-BSD clause stamped at the top, but I don’t know what the resulting combination of the project plus its dependencies becomes.
I don't know what to think about this, as so little is said about the project. @namr2000 asked some very pertinent questions, but I'll ask more general ones:
1. Who is developing this? Is it a one-person project? A group of developers? An organization? If so, is it academic? Commercial?
2. What is the purpose of developing this OS + userland software system? Is it a personal hobby? A demonstration of certain principles lacking in existing OSes (and userland software)?
3. Why try developing everything altogether? i.e. all of a kernel, low-level services/userland code, a graphical desktop environment, and applications? Each one of these seems like a rather daunting endeavor.
4. What standards and what APIs do the different components adhere to? Is any of them intended to be interchangeable with existing code running on existing OSes?
I very briefly stalked their osdev forum posts. Looks like a hobby project with a focus on writing (their own?) audio/video playing (and maybe even editing?) software on top of it.
Based on their docs, it looks like it's not POSIX compatible and they seem to have their own core libs for everything. Unlikely that it will ever go beyond a hobby project but its a very neat dive. Years of work. Solo osdev-ers are beasts, that's why they do it all.
They are indeed, but this kind of tragic... I mean, all that skill, that knowledge, the experience - working on something which, almost by definition, very few people will be able to use (because people require lots of things from their OS + apps, so that such a project is extremely unlikely to meet all of those requirements). And even as inspiration for other developers and designers - the solo OS-developer is unlikely to spend the time elucidating their design choices and architecture, in documentation, presentations, talks etc.
And this is in contrast with the solo developer of a library or app, whose work is immediately usable by many even it's an undocumented black box... OSes are a team sport.
> I mean, all that skill, that knowledge, the experience - working on something which, almost by definition, very few people will be able to use.
This sentiment makes me sad. You can do things for fun, y'know? And when someone's just having fun, not hurting anyone, and being creative - that's got to be more than just tragic. It's basically the definition of a hobby.
I would also assume that a lot of these hobbyists are excellent engineers at their day jobs. While tons of the osdev work is going to be specific to osdev/hardware, tons of it will make you a better engineer.
The operating systems course I took in college was foundational to my understanding of how programs work and the memory model of modern computers.
The comment you’re replying to mentions osdev. If you’ve ever been an osdev-er, it’s more about personal growth and understanding OS development for yourself…
Regarding point 3, having the entire base system developed as a single project has worked well for the BSDs. They are much more consistent than Linux distros and much better documented (although props to Arch on their how-to style docs, they're unmatched). Spend a bit of time with them and Linux starts feeling kinda janky.
This is an opinion that I've often read, but that does not match my limited experience. The difference in quality between BSDs and Linux is not clear. I've found outdated documentation on both sides, though BSDs mitigate this by being more stable (i.e. less innovative, if you prefer looking at the dark side).
For instance, a blog post was recently describing struggles with the NetBSD installer. It complained that the documentation chapter about installation was 7 years old, and about obsolete releases of the OS and its installer. https://eerielinux.wordpress.com/2025/05/31/installing-bsd-i...
Another example, this time with FreeBSD. The documentation still has a section about floppy disks, and the chapter about "Linux Binary Compatibility" is for Linux 3, about 10 years ago. Hard to tell if these pages are still valid.
I can't speak for NetBSD's install guide, other than I didn't have trouble with it when I last installed it. Also, floppies are still relevant for the BSDs, since a lot of people use BSDs in retrocomputing.
Regarding "less innovative," I suspect you're just unfamiliar with what goes on with FreeBSD and OpenBSD. There's lots of innovation there. NetBSD stays simple and traditional, but that's an intentional choice.
FreeBSD has a policy that they don't accept undocumented changes. If you add or modify a feature in a program, you have to update any relevant man pages and also the handbook if necessary. I assume NetBSD and OpenBSD have similar rules. The man pages are where the BSDs really shine - the difference is night and day.
We’re unable to reply to everyone’s comment individually due to the HN’s limit of only a few comments at a time.
We’ll try to summarise it all here itself -
So we at Team Xeneva are two guys trying our best to create an OS for modern computing and hardware. Team includes Manas Kamal Choudhury from Assam, who has been developing XenevaOS since 2020 and he is responsible for most of the technical development. The project was later joined by Ayushmaan Bora who oversees the strategies & execution part of the project and is entitled to look at the professional aspects of the project. Xeneva started out as a solo hobby project by Manas but now together, the both of us are taking this project professionally.
The purpose of XenevaOS is to build an OS from scratch targeting modern hardware and modern computing. XenevaOS is not limited to just personal computing or mobile computing, we aim for extending the potential of an Operating System to multiple use cases, like Automobile, Robotics, and medical science and primarily AR/VR/XR while putting users as first priority rather user fixing software dependencies.
XenevaOS focuses on modern technology rather than carrying legacy codes and aims to have minimal software abstraction
We will try to reply to everyone’s comment individually after the timeout disappears, but till then we’re open for communication.
Our Email address - hi@getxeneva.com
For those interested to learn about the purpose, vision and goals of our project, please visit our website - getxeneva.com
You could just vouch these comments and they'd be visible right away. Much faster than typing these accusatory messages :)
Both of them were auto-killed due to very normal system mechanisms that have been in place for years. But the whole reason we have the vouch system is so that when people see a killed comment that should be visible, they can click the link and it should appear immediately.
Failing that you could email us. This is much more reliable than an @mention, which isn't an official or reliable way to contact us (the only reason I saw your comment was that somebody else emailed us about it).
Impressive, but.. start with how it should look, don't make that an afterthought.
Hobby operating systems have one thing in common, they all have a great logo but look like a late 90s linux desktop. Windows decoration and fonts look like they were hacked together last night.
Instead start with a visual design and work backwards. You'll get instant appreciation from your audience. Unless the aim is to basically get SSH working and compile a bunch of gnu tools for a basic shell, in which case knock yourself out but don't be surprised when everyone ignores your work.
This come across as snark but it's frustration at the wasted effort and that good work will go unnoticed.
Sorry, this comment blows my mind and it's important to me that you understand why.
Someone appears to have written an operating system from scratch. I've just spent 30 mins going through the commit history of it. This is an incredibly unique project undertaken by an incredibly skilled individual who's committed a huge amount of time to doing something 99.999% of even HN readers couldn't dream of doing.
I'm not saying it's perfect, there are things I don't like, and if I had the capability to do this, I would want it done differently (e.g. not windows only build). But I also recognise that this is the sort of project that requires a special kind of person and approach to make even start planning, let alone execute through to a functioning UI.
But you just rocked up, and essentially said "you should start from the UI first, it looks crap."
This is 100% snark to you: I think it's just plain rude and also just wrong of you to say virtually nothing other than how this is ugly and will go unnoticed as a result, simply because it doesn't do the thing that's important to you (e.g. look nice).
I should give you credit because you said "Impressive" at the start. That's all.
FWIW, I think it already looks better than a fair few Linux desktops I've seen, just my opinion as someone who doesn't know anything about design.
Right. A novel operating system would be a great opportunity to start without all the baggage of 70+ years of OS design, and create something for the modern world. But most projects seem to be stuck with the same metaphors we have had for ages.
There’s really an opportunity for innovation here.
The closest would be the modern Oberon environments, but I found them weird and unusable. If Win95/FVWM with virtual desktops work perfectly well, why the change?
FVWM had great working setups on their screenshoot page.
This predates smartphones I'd guess:
Well, for one thing, all desktop environments from the 90ies started from a metaphor for the things on a physical desk, sheets of paper shuffled around, and so on; that was perfectly sensible for a target group of previously computer-illiterates that needed concepts to grasp onto.
We’re in a different world now, but user interfaces are still stuck in the past, the same way railways are designed to accommodate for Roman carriages.
By starting to design without those guardrails in mind, we could arrive at something that isn’t the local maximum of 30 years ago. At least that is my hope; who knows until we try!
What we're currently working on is a totally revamped UI/UX with a modern design. We'd say that in a way, we're inspired by the design of the VisionOS. Then again, we're building something completely different from them but you can get an idea of the type of product that we're trying to build. Stay tuned for more and no, we would not let all the effort and work go into waste! We're working on this project and are committed to this full time!
Excellent, I think you took my comment in the spirit it was intended, nobody else did :) - aesthetics is a form of marketing but nobody outside your project is invested in your marketing in the same way you are. Good luck with the future!
I suspect you're underestimating how difficult good UI really is. There's a reason UX is a separate career than development - it's a completely different skill set. And I speak as someone who has to do both (industrial HMI design) and I am well aware that I do the latter poorly.
Desktop GUIs were already solved in the 90s. Just stick with what works. Modern GUIs make the mistake of trying to force one GUI onto all platforms, giving us antifeatures like hamburger menus and vanishing scrollbars. As a desktop user, I'd rather the designers stayed as far away from my software as possible.
Any new operating system will be frustrating for non-technical users. An older-looking UI serves the valuable purpose of filtering people who aren't the intended audience.
Hello everyone,
We’re unable to reply to everyone’s comment individually due to the HN’s limit of only a few comments at a time.
We’ll try to summarise it all here itself -
So we at Team Xeneva are two guys trying our best to create an OS for modern computing and hardware. Team includes Manas Kamal Choudhury from Assam, who has been developing XenevaOS since 2020 and he is responsible for most of the technical development. The project was later joined by Ayushmaan Bora who oversees the strategies & execution part of the project and is entitled to look at the professional aspects of the project. Xeneva started out as a solo hobby project by Manas but now together, the both of us are taking this project professionally.
The purpose of XenevaOS is to build an OS from scratch targeting modern hardware and modern computing. XenevaOS is not limited to just personal computing or mobile computing, we aim for extending the potential of an Operating System to multiple use cases, like Automobile, Robotics, and medical science and primarily AR/VR/XR while putting users as first priority rather user fixing software dependencies.
XenevaOS focuses on modern technology rather than carrying legacy codes and aims to have minimal software abstraction
We will try to reply to everyone’s comment individually after the timeout disappears, but till then we’re open for communication.
Our Email address - hi@getxeneva.com
For those interested to learn about the purpose, vision and goals of our project, please visit our website - getxeneva.com
Thank You Team XENEVA.
Hey brother, I found your project on Reddit, and thought it was cool, hence posted on HN. I am also from Assam btw.
Hello brother, thank you so much for this post. Please contact us at hi@getxeneva.com !
This is a really impressive project, but I wish the Github page had more information about the design of the system, e.g
1. Is it intending to be a unix-like system?
2. is libc supported? I see that you have XECLib which looks like a custom libc impl?
3. What are the principles behind IPC? I see that there's "PostBox IPC" and that's how windows communicate with the window manager, but from a quick glance I'm not sure how the window manager communicates with the video driver.
4. What's the object format? I see there's docs for XELoader but it doesn't get into how it works or how the linker produces the object files that it loads.
This clearly took a ton of effort and it's a cool project!
Hello, thank you for reaching out! Yes, the GitHub repository has limited information currently, but we are working on the documentations.
- Xeneva is not intending to be Unix like, but some core principles of Unix are followed.
- Xeneva has its own libc implementation called XECLib that are attached to Xeneva's own system call interface.
- Xeneva supports IPC via shared memory, IPC via socket and IPC via its own message based communication called PostBox IPC. Xeneva currently use framebuffer for Graphics Output, no working video driver is implemented. The framebuffer is mapped onto Windows Managers address space and the Windows Manager composes the final image to framebuffer by writing to that mapped virtual address.
- Xeneva uses PE format for executable,no doubt ELF support can be implemented. XELoader is a dynamic linker and loader process which is responsible for resolving running processes symbols by linking it to its specific shared library. Whenever a new process get spawned,and an executable is loaded, the XELoader loads all required shared libraries and link them to the process.
You can refer to our website - getxeneva.com to get a hint of our future goals and vision.
Thank you, Team XENEVA.
The website instantly provides information that is missing from both the documentation and the github page: what is xeneva for? Now I know that it's "designed to power the next generation of modern computing across multiple platforms—from traditional systems to cutting-edge AR/VR/XR devices. We're redefining what an operating system can achieve in an era where computing extends beyond screens into spatial environments." Up till then, I had guessed it might be a hobby project, an academic learning exercise, or a playground for new OS concepts.
I still don't know what it is after reading that. What does it solve that other OS don't?
Edit: other comments seem to suggest 1.) it abandons support for older hardware and focuses on modern hardware, 2.) it's supposed to allow 3D UI, 3.) it has minimal software abstractions for performance.
I guess I can understand #1, but I'm not sure why existing OS wouldn't be able to handle #2. I'm not sure how #3 works in practice if there are a lot of different hardware architectures to support.
Thank you for commenting. We believe there does exist a market gap in places that one quickly doesn't notice. We'll drop one instance here, look at the AR/VR market. It's quite possible that AR devices will be the future so of course good software would be needed there. Apple has it's VisionOS which is decent but that will forever be limited to Apple products only. There is no proper alternative to that as of yet, although Google and Android are working on soon releasing AndroidXR. But even that is essentially just based on top of the AndroidOS. We're trying to create a robust kernel and a dedicated platform for such devices.
We also aim to work on RISC-V architecture as well so helps us cater to more utility.
Please Email us at hi@getxeneva.com to communicate further.
Thanks, Team XENEVA.
The linux kernel essentially provides everything a modern operating system needs, including all the necessary device drivers. Unless you offer a significant selling point, something radically different, or a substantial improvement over, say, Linux or FreeBSD, I don't see a compelling use case for Xeneva OS. That said, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great project to experiment with and take my upvote.
You could have made the same point for early Linux
Early Linux was a university student having fun in his apartment learning 386 assembly, and everything onward from there was earned by merit (it just was that good). This is boasting to be "modern computing reimagined", "the future of computing", "revolutionary operating system", "designed to power the next generation of modern computing", "redefining what an operating system can achieve". Burden of proof is on a slightly different level.
Being an Open-Source, free OS was the Linux selling point, over commercial Unixes and Windows. That was the open lane with relatively little competition. Now that Linux and BSDs are there, it's no longer an empty lane but a tough one to compete in.
Granted FreeBSD could have picked up more instead, but it was almost as young and not to be due to a series of 90s decisions (BSD court case; Linux name being catchy; Linux running a bit better on 386 PCs?; GNU tools being the default?; IBM deciding to invest in Linux).
Thanks for the explanation and further background! I appreciate it. I'm still a little confused why custom OS is needed for a headset. I would have guessed you'd just need another...I forget the term for it, but on Linux you have like XFCE, Cinnamon, and KDE like GUI skins on top of the core functionality.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like they can get better performance on the target hardware with a purpose-built design. It is about more than the GUI.
> Is it intending to be a unix-like system?
It is not even using regular names for the tools such as "clear" to clear the screen, so I dunno.
While novel OSs are frequently introduced on HN, this project is rather different.
That it's built under Windows strikes me as quite an unusual feature. To their credit the developers provide sufficiently detailed build instructions that aren't too hard to follow. However the build environment is very specific. VC has a lot of configuration options, so no doubt very close attention is required to make sure everything is set up correctly.
Running the compiled system in a VM is sensible, kind of a shame though that Windows native Hyper-V isn't supported. Perhaps that will be possible in a later iteration of the OS.
Would be nice if the authors gave a rundown of how this OS compares with others out there. Without having a clear idea of this OS's features and advantages, potential contributors might feel hesitant about investing time and energy in its development.
Hello, MSVC seems quite interesting for us. No doubt, the code can be ported to other build environment. For instance, The ARM64 version uses both the advantages of clang and MSVC. The build setup is not so hard, and once setup is completed it can be build within a click.
It's possible to run the system using Hyper-V. Required configuration are clearly mentioned in the documentation. Windows add extra security called Virtualization Based Security which needs to be disabled while running XenevaOS. Xeneva is well tested on VMware Workstation Pro and Virtual Box. We're working on real machine support, making the project to be beyond hobby os project.
XenevaOS is built from ground up with modern computing in mind. We're currently working on bringing it to XR systems (AR/VR devices). Compared to other OS, Xeneva doesn't holds legacy legacy hardware code which make it easy to focus on modern technologies. The project aims to be multi architectured, minimal abstractions in software for better performance and to put user as first priority rather than user fixing software requirements.
You can refer to our website, getxeneva.com to get a hint about our project's purpose, goals and vision!
Thank you, Team XENEVA.
Appreciate your reply! I am interested in trying it out, I'm familiar with MS tools so I don't think I'd have too much trouble following the procedures you've described. Glad to hear Hyper-V is an option since I've used it quite often, usually straightforward enough installing an OS.
Anyway your project sounds sufficiently different from established OSs to make me curious to see it running. However I think you're right, long-term success depends on gaining developer support to grow a large useful software catalog. Having that happen relies on having good tools available and to the extent possible clear interfaces to program against.
BTW one of the problems programming for Windows is the ungodly number of ABIs propagated by MS. AIUI MSVC is considered a legacy technology. MS encourages using UCRT, sort of modernized MSVC, and not fully compatible. Many more examples are out there.
Anyway my point is the virtue of keeping it simple, at least making it no more complicated than necessary.
Finally I'm curious about your reasons for developing on Windows. Doesn't seem the obvious or intuitive choice, but you've done well to make it work. Should be fun to try it out.
It would be nice if the authors provided a bootable ISO, or even just a video showcase.
I use my Windows machine for games, I wouldn't care to set up a dev environment even if I knew how to.
Your comment is acknowledged.
Thank you, Team Xeneva.
Excellent work in writing a non Unix/POSIXy OS. More people should experiment with non standard implementations and have fun doing it.
I usually maintain a list of OS Devers who make their own OSes. Will add this one to it.
Is that list publicly available? I would be curious to have a look.
It's always impressive when someone builds an OS.
To be noticed by a large community though, a new OS needs to be different from yet another C-based POSIX-style system. We already have a lot of those which are fine enough. It would be nice to see a new OS chucking away that legacy and doing some new things, supporting Linux via a WSL-style system at most.
Hello, thanks for your comment.
Xeneva is built from scratch with modern hardware and modern computing on mind. We're working on making a transitional shift from legacy systems. You can refer to our website, getxeneva.com to get a hint about our purpose, future goals and vision!
Thank you, Team XENEVA.
> To be noticed by a large community though, a new OS needs to be different from yet another C-based POSIX-style system. We already have a lot of those which are fine enough.
Needs to be different
> It would be nice to see a new OS chucking away that legacy and doing some new things, supporting Linux via a WSL-style system at most.
Needs to be similar
The others read this right: New OSs should be different than yet another C-based POSIX-style system. Linux compatibility is a secondary consideration and not so important.
It used to be that Linux ecosystem compatibility was an excuse for not innovating. WSL2 proved that so long as the base design allows for virtualization, one could still support Linux decently enough. So there are no longer any excuses when one can even get lots of compatible-enough software with very little impinging on base design.
You’re ignoring the “at most”.
I think you misread that. The whole point of that last line was not the word "linux" but the words "at most".
They are not saying it needs to be like linux.
They are saying the most it should do towards linux compatibility is to maybe have some form of WSL.
The "at most" seems to suggest they want it to be a minor part of the design - i.e. provide it as a layer if you must, but do something interesting with the base thing. It's the exact opposite of your understanding.
How about https://www.redox-os.org/
https://www.haiku-os.org/ ?
Harvey OS is retired: https://harvey-os.org/
check out https://gitlab.com/nakst/essence
From getxeneva.com:
”Unlike traditional operating systems, XenevaOS enables holographic interfaces and real-time 3D environments that fundamentally change how we interact with digital content. Our vision is to move beyond the limitations of 2D screens into a world where computing adapts to humans, not the other way around.”
I'm always curious when new OSs seem to worry about both core functions and presentation layer concerns. Doesn't that spread development work too much?
I've tried many times writing an OS on my own but I always failed at some stage because the material online becomes scarce and it's very hard to proceed. I saw in your Youtube channel that you're very young, may I ask you about your journey to achieve something like this?
Yes we’re a team of two young college students. Please contact us on our mail address- hi@getxeneva.com
I could contact you but I think sharing your advice would be beneficial to everyone.
Project calls itself Open Source, but I can't seem find the license.
Does it have one?
Many of the files I checked have a 2-BSD clause stamped at the top, but I don’t know what the resulting combination of the project plus its dependencies becomes.
It is 2-BSD, will be added to the repo in a future update.
Source: asked them.
That's what I was wondering too, I have sent them an email.
Update: It's BSD 2-Clause. This will be added to the repo soon. Also the people behind it are super helpful and passionate behind the project!!
further update: The license is there now[0].
0. https://github.com/manaskamal/XenevaOS/blob/master/LICENSE
I don't know what to think about this, as so little is said about the project. @namr2000 asked some very pertinent questions, but I'll ask more general ones:
1. Who is developing this? Is it a one-person project? A group of developers? An organization? If so, is it academic? Commercial?
2. What is the purpose of developing this OS + userland software system? Is it a personal hobby? A demonstration of certain principles lacking in existing OSes (and userland software)?
3. Why try developing everything altogether? i.e. all of a kernel, low-level services/userland code, a graphical desktop environment, and applications? Each one of these seems like a rather daunting endeavor.
4. What standards and what APIs do the different components adhere to? Is any of them intended to be interchangeable with existing code running on existing OSes?
I very briefly stalked their osdev forum posts. Looks like a hobby project with a focus on writing (their own?) audio/video playing (and maybe even editing?) software on top of it.
Based on their docs, it looks like it's not POSIX compatible and they seem to have their own core libs for everything. Unlikely that it will ever go beyond a hobby project but its a very neat dive. Years of work. Solo osdev-ers are beasts, that's why they do it all.
They are indeed, but this kind of tragic... I mean, all that skill, that knowledge, the experience - working on something which, almost by definition, very few people will be able to use (because people require lots of things from their OS + apps, so that such a project is extremely unlikely to meet all of those requirements). And even as inspiration for other developers and designers - the solo OS-developer is unlikely to spend the time elucidating their design choices and architecture, in documentation, presentations, talks etc.
And this is in contrast with the solo developer of a library or app, whose work is immediately usable by many even it's an undocumented black box... OSes are a team sport.
> I mean, all that skill, that knowledge, the experience - working on something which, almost by definition, very few people will be able to use.
This sentiment makes me sad. You can do things for fun, y'know? And when someone's just having fun, not hurting anyone, and being creative - that's got to be more than just tragic. It's basically the definition of a hobby.
You can me things for fun, but the language on the website is ridiculously bombastic for that: https://www.getxeneva.com/
I would also assume that a lot of these hobbyists are excellent engineers at their day jobs. While tons of the osdev work is going to be specific to osdev/hardware, tons of it will make you a better engineer.
The operating systems course I took in college was foundational to my understanding of how programs work and the memory model of modern computers.
> OSes are a team sport
The comment you’re replying to mentions osdev. If you’ve ever been an osdev-er, it’s more about personal growth and understanding OS development for yourself…
We are still allowed to do things for fun, right?
Well, yes, fair enough, but - if a multi-person-year project is just for fun and almost unusable by others, then - I feel it's a shame.
Regarding point 3, having the entire base system developed as a single project has worked well for the BSDs. They are much more consistent than Linux distros and much better documented (although props to Arch on their how-to style docs, they're unmatched). Spend a bit of time with them and Linux starts feeling kinda janky.
> BSDs are [...] much better documented
This is an opinion that I've often read, but that does not match my limited experience. The difference in quality between BSDs and Linux is not clear. I've found outdated documentation on both sides, though BSDs mitigate this by being more stable (i.e. less innovative, if you prefer looking at the dark side).
For instance, a blog post was recently describing struggles with the NetBSD installer. It complained that the documentation chapter about installation was 7 years old, and about obsolete releases of the OS and its installer. https://eerielinux.wordpress.com/2025/05/31/installing-bsd-i...
Another example, this time with FreeBSD. The documentation still has a section about floppy disks, and the chapter about "Linux Binary Compatibility" is for Linux 3, about 10 years ago. Hard to tell if these pages are still valid.
I can't speak for NetBSD's install guide, other than I didn't have trouble with it when I last installed it. Also, floppies are still relevant for the BSDs, since a lot of people use BSDs in retrocomputing.
Regarding "less innovative," I suspect you're just unfamiliar with what goes on with FreeBSD and OpenBSD. There's lots of innovation there. NetBSD stays simple and traditional, but that's an intentional choice.
FreeBSD has a policy that they don't accept undocumented changes. If you add or modify a feature in a program, you have to update any relevant man pages and also the handbook if necessary. I assume NetBSD and OpenBSD have similar rules. The man pages are where the BSDs really shine - the difference is night and day.
> having the entire base system developed as a single project has worked well for the BSDs.
Well,
* I don't believe BSD develop their own GUI and apps. So, just the "base system" like you said.
* BSD is a 60-year project, started by a university, and taken up by many individuals and organizations, not a personal hobby project.
Thank you for making this and working on it. I am always impressed when people have the skill and discipline to code new operating systems.
Also thank you for not being yet another UNIX like OS
There is nothing wrong with creating a UNIX like operating systems it still takes skill and discipline but trying other paths is of great value.
Here's a video with descriptions and possibly outdated instructions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXcOcbKNWXA
Welp, that looks insanely cool
Thank you so much for your comment ! If you're interested, you can have a look at our website, getxeneva.com to learn more!
Team XENEVA.
nice job. is there an iso to try on vm ?
Hello everyone,
We’re unable to reply to everyone’s comment individually due to the HN’s limit of only a few comments at a time.
We’ll try to summarise it all here itself -
So we at Team Xeneva are two guys trying our best to create an OS for modern computing and hardware. Team includes Manas Kamal Choudhury from Assam, who has been developing XenevaOS since 2020 and he is responsible for most of the technical development. The project was later joined by Ayushmaan Bora who oversees the strategies & execution part of the project and is entitled to look at the professional aspects of the project. Xeneva started out as a solo hobby project by Manas but now together, the both of us are taking this project professionally.
The purpose of XenevaOS is to build an OS from scratch targeting modern hardware and modern computing. XenevaOS is not limited to just personal computing or mobile computing, we aim for extending the potential of an Operating System to multiple use cases, like Automobile, Robotics, and medical science and primarily AR/VR/XR while putting users as first priority rather user fixing software dependencies.
XenevaOS focuses on modern technology rather than carrying legacy codes and aims to have minimal software abstraction
We will try to reply to everyone’s comment individually after the timeout disappears, but till then we’re open for communication.
Our Email address - hi@getxeneva.com
For those interested to learn about the purpose, vision and goals of our project, please visit our website - getxeneva.com
Thank You Team XENEVA.
[flagged]
More weird harmful moderation!
This is a great global/general response:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44246578
Why is it marked dead? @dang, are you able to fix that?
You could just vouch these comments and they'd be visible right away. Much faster than typing these accusatory messages :)
Both of them were auto-killed due to very normal system mechanisms that have been in place for years. But the whole reason we have the vouch system is so that when people see a killed comment that should be visible, they can click the link and it should appear immediately.
Failing that you could email us. This is much more reliable than an @mention, which isn't an official or reliable way to contact us (the only reason I saw your comment was that somebody else emailed us about it).
> You could just vouch these comments
I spent some time Googling this. Apparently some people can see a "vouch" button somewhere. I can't.
> Failing that you could email us.
Tried that to ask why my submissions were being tagged dead. Twice. No reply.
Impressive, but.. start with how it should look, don't make that an afterthought.
Hobby operating systems have one thing in common, they all have a great logo but look like a late 90s linux desktop. Windows decoration and fonts look like they were hacked together last night.
Instead start with a visual design and work backwards. You'll get instant appreciation from your audience. Unless the aim is to basically get SSH working and compile a bunch of gnu tools for a basic shell, in which case knock yourself out but don't be surprised when everyone ignores your work.
This come across as snark but it's frustration at the wasted effort and that good work will go unnoticed.
Sorry, this comment blows my mind and it's important to me that you understand why.
Someone appears to have written an operating system from scratch. I've just spent 30 mins going through the commit history of it. This is an incredibly unique project undertaken by an incredibly skilled individual who's committed a huge amount of time to doing something 99.999% of even HN readers couldn't dream of doing.
I'm not saying it's perfect, there are things I don't like, and if I had the capability to do this, I would want it done differently (e.g. not windows only build). But I also recognise that this is the sort of project that requires a special kind of person and approach to make even start planning, let alone execute through to a functioning UI.
But you just rocked up, and essentially said "you should start from the UI first, it looks crap."
This is 100% snark to you: I think it's just plain rude and also just wrong of you to say virtually nothing other than how this is ugly and will go unnoticed as a result, simply because it doesn't do the thing that's important to you (e.g. look nice).
I should give you credit because you said "Impressive" at the start. That's all.
FWIW, I think it already looks better than a fair few Linux desktops I've seen, just my opinion as someone who doesn't know anything about design.
Lol, the devs agreed with me. They don't want it to get lost in the sea of toy operating systems either.
Right. A novel operating system would be a great opportunity to start without all the baggage of 70+ years of OS design, and create something for the modern world. But most projects seem to be stuck with the same metaphors we have had for ages.
There’s really an opportunity for innovation here.
The closest would be the modern Oberon environments, but I found them weird and unusable. If Win95/FVWM with virtual desktops work perfectly well, why the change?
FVWM had great working setups on their screenshoot page. This predates smartphones I'd guess:
https://www.fvwm.org/Archive/Screenshots/2011-04-15_Christin...
Well, for one thing, all desktop environments from the 90ies started from a metaphor for the things on a physical desk, sheets of paper shuffled around, and so on; that was perfectly sensible for a target group of previously computer-illiterates that needed concepts to grasp onto.
We’re in a different world now, but user interfaces are still stuck in the past, the same way railways are designed to accommodate for Roman carriages.
By starting to design without those guardrails in mind, we could arrive at something that isn’t the local maximum of 30 years ago. At least that is my hope; who knows until we try!
>Roman carriages
That's an urban legend.
>Stuck in the past
So are pencils, erasers, and pens. And they just work.
Win 95 was propietary, yes, but the design had top UI/UX.
Add virtual desktops on top of that among an 'always on top' toggle button and you'll have everything.
Team XENEVA agrees with you!
What we're currently working on is a totally revamped UI/UX with a modern design. We'd say that in a way, we're inspired by the design of the VisionOS. Then again, we're building something completely different from them but you can get an idea of the type of product that we're trying to build. Stay tuned for more and no, we would not let all the effort and work go into waste! We're working on this project and are committed to this full time!
Thank You, Team XENEVA.
Excellent, I think you took my comment in the spirit it was intended, nobody else did :) - aesthetics is a form of marketing but nobody outside your project is invested in your marketing in the same way you are. Good luck with the future!
I suspect you're underestimating how difficult good UI really is. There's a reason UX is a separate career than development - it's a completely different skill set. And I speak as someone who has to do both (industrial HMI design) and I am well aware that I do the latter poorly.
Desktop GUIs were already solved in the 90s. Just stick with what works. Modern GUIs make the mistake of trying to force one GUI onto all platforms, giving us antifeatures like hamburger menus and vanishing scrollbars. As a desktop user, I'd rather the designers stayed as far away from my software as possible.
Any new operating system will be frustrating for non-technical users. An older-looking UI serves the valuable purpose of filtering people who aren't the intended audience.
Late 90's desktops were great.
Ah yes, that's why Apple just had to rewrite iOS from scratch to change the theming in their latest release.