Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Sep 2005 16:51 UTC, submitted by Christos Karayiannis
OSNews, Generic OSes C. Karayiannis and A. Swartzbaugh have finished documenting Minix' networking protocol. This is a line to line commenting of the tcp/ip source code. This project took more than one year to complete and they hope visitors will find it useful.
Order by: Score:
TCP/IP not included
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Sep 2005 17:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"While this web site covers most of the functionality of the network service, there is significant functionality that it does not cover. The most important omission is TCP (Transmission Control Protocol). We did not cover TCP because we simply did not have the time to adequately document this complex protocol. We also did not document any of the ethernet drivers (tasks) available for Minix."

Reply Score: 2

v Why bother?
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Sep 2005 17:54 UTC
RE: Why bother?
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Sep 2005 18:12 UTC in reply to "Why bother?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why not? It is a good place for people to start who want to learn more about the gory details of TCP/IP. Minix has always been about education. This is just a furthering of that goal. Just because its not the latest fad doesn't mean its not worth anything.

I suppose you're probably just trolling. oh well.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Why bother?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Sep 2005 01:37 UTC in reply to "Why bother?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Because Minix basically served as the base for Linux?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why bother?
by Who is That on Sun 18th Sep 2005 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Why bother?"
Who is That Member since:
2005-07-02

umm, no it idi not actually. try reading Linus's book sometime. Minix was an "inspiration" because the prof who made it was a jerk about it and would not allow Linus to do what he wanted to do with it.

Reply Score: 0

Linux vs Minix in popular myth
by jonas.kirilla on Sun 18th Sep 2005 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother?"
jonas.kirilla Member since:
2005-07-11

Come children, let me tell you about the Great Dragon-slayer Linus Torvalds, and how killed the Dragon of Minix...

History Is Written by the Victors. Now Linux is a saint and Tanenbaum is the "original roadblock", in popular Linux myth. So they had creative differences, and there were licensing issues. Big deal.

It's annoying how each day more newbies are drawn into Linux and start spouting fundamentalistic newbisms about "free speech vs free beer" and the original sin of Tanenbaum, or how revolutionary Ubuntu is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why bother?
by monkeyhead on Sun 18th Sep 2005 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother?"
monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

The Professor's name is Andrew Tanenbaum. He wrote MINIX for educational purposes. Basically he kept it small enough so it could be analyzed and understood over the course of a semester.

He intentionally would not let additional features in because it would defeat his design goal of having an OS small enough for a student to understand.

And your precious Linux was also cross developed on MINIX and borrowed heavily from it's design ideas in a lot of areas.

So complain all you want about 'the evil jerk professor' the you read about in Linus's book, but I personally think he made some awesome contributions to the computer science field and have a great deal of respect for that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Why bother?
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Sep 2005 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why bother?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And your precious Linux was also cross developed on MINIX and borrowed heavily from it's design ideas in a lot of areas.

Actually it doesn't.

That's what the whole flame war back then was about.

There is a no similarities between minix and linux apart from those stemming from their *nix-inheritage.

Linux was created for work, minix for education. Minix was purely used to create a dev.platform on x86. There never was minix-source in any way within linux.

Reply Score: 0

v Wait!
by Anonymous on Sat 17th Sep 2005 19:14 UTC
Great Job!!!
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Sep 2005 05:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is really a great job and a great service to the public! Hope you guys keep it updated as development progresses. BTW, whoever reads this website while asking why bother should go to visit a psychiatrist!

Also, there seems to be a few pages where image links are broken. Not a biggy...

Reply Score: 0

I like
by deathshadow on Sun 18th Sep 2005 07:13 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

... and the reason I like it is that well documented examples of implementing a tcp/ip stack has always been near nonexistant (have you looked at the linux code for this?). It's one of the core things needed to build a new operating system these days, but finding hard information on doing it has always boiled down to pouring over page after page of specifications and theory, with no good examples of application.

All I can say is it's about time.

Reply Score: 1

commented source incl TCP since 10 years
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Sep 2005 10:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"well documented examples of implementing a tcp/ip stack has always been near nonexistant"

I guess you have to be a linux fanatic to not know about TCP/IP Illustrated Vol 2: The Implementation:

"TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2 contains a thorough explanation of how TCP/IP protocols are implemented. There isn't a more practical or up-to-date bookothis volume is the only one to cover the de facto standard implementation from the 4.4BSD-Lite release, the foundation for TCP/IP implementations run daily on hundreds of thousands of systems worldwide.

Combining 500 illustrations with 15,000 lines of real, working code, TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2 uses a teach-by-example approach to help you master TCP/IP implementation. You will learn about such topics as the relationship between the sockets API and the protocol suite, and the differences between a host implementation and a router. In addition, the book covers the newest features of the 4.4BSD-Lite release, including multicasting, long fat pipe support, window scale, timestamp options, and protection against wrapped sequence numbers, and many other topics."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/020163354X/qid=112703...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux vs Minix in popular myth
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Sep 2005 13:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Even a linux 'fanatic' as me agrees that it is pretty simple to find the actual facts. But what can you do? Linux in general has a large amount of users and whith a large amount of users that means a good percent of people who like to post about certian things without understanding it.

But what can you do?

Reply Score: 0

Great, time to start again!
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Sep 2005 14:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So they've just finished documenting Minix 2.0.4's network code, when the release of Minix 3.0.? (First public release of Minix 3) is imminent, see comp.os.minix

So... time to start again, guys!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Great, time to start again!
by Anonymous on Sun 18th Sep 2005 15:26 UTC in reply to "Great, time to start again!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Take a look -- the Minix 3 networking code is hardly different from that for Minix 2.

The big difference of Minix 3 from Minix 2 is the increased modularity -- all of the device drivers are
totally independent processes running in user space.

The Minix network server was an early test of this -- between Minix 2.0.0 and Minix 2.0.3 the need to compile the network server with the kernel was eliminated.

Reply Score: 0

overstatement
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Sep 2005 15:00 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Linus Torvalds used Minix as a 'digital textbook' for writing the Linux kernel (as did many other developers), no one is denying that. In that sense, Linux is based on Minix. Minix forms the base of Linux because Linus studied Minix, and then went on to create Linux.

However, to say that Linux 'thanks its existence' to Minix is an overstatement. Linux and Minix are fundamentally different-- Where Minix is a microkernel, Linux is a monolithic kernel. Indeed, the exact opposite.

Reply Score: 5

Minix and 386BSD
by jonas.kirilla on Sun 18th Sep 2005 23:00 UTC in reply to "overstatement"
jonas.kirilla Member since:
2005-07-11

Linus may also have found inspiration in 386BSD and a series of articles on it in Dr. Dobbs Journal, as described in this thread:

http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2005-08/msg00035.ht...

Reply Score: 1