Xeneva Operating System
76 comments
·June 10, 2025manas_kamal
psnehanshu
Hey brother, I found your project on Reddit, and thought it was cool, hence posted on HN. I am also from Assam btw.
manas_kamal
Hello brother, thank you so much for this post. Please contact us at hi@getxeneva.com !
namr2000
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!
ayush_xeneva
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.
dash2
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.
7thaccount
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.
johnisgood
> 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.
jrapdx3
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.
ayush_xeneva
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.
jrapdx3
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.
rollcat
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.
ayush_xeneva
Your comment is acknowledged.
Thank you, Team Xeneva.
vkaku
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.
GTP
Is that list publicly available? I would be curious to have a look.
yyyk
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.
ayush_xeneva
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.
leoh
> 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
yyyk
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.
layer8
You’re ignoring the “at most”.
Brian_K_White
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.
exe34
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.
Beijinger
How about https://www.redox-os.org/
Harvey OS is retired: https://harvey-os.org/
andsoitis
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.”
not-so-darkstar
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?
manas_kamal
Yes we’re a team of two young college students. Please contact us on our mail address- hi@getxeneva.com
not-so-darkstar
I could contact you but I think sharing your advice would be beneficial to everyone.
rbanffy
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?
snvzz
Project calls itself Open Source, but I can't seem find the license.
Does it have one?
jmmv
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.
suobset
It is 2-BSD, will be added to the repo in a future update.
Source: asked them.
suobset
That's what I was wondering too, I have sent them an email.
suobset
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!!
snvzz
further update: The license is there now[0].
0. https://github.com/manaskamal/XenevaOS/blob/master/LICENSE
einpoklum
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?
j_w
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.
einpoklum
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.
1dom
> 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.
alfiedotwtf
> 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?
spauldo
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.
idoubtit
> 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.
spauldo
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.
ThinkBeat
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.
cess11
Here's a video with descriptions and possibly outdated instructions:
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.