Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Oct 2005 10:11 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Today, Andy Tanenbaum has officially announced the release of MINIX 3.0, the third stable version of this rather legendary operating system. The launch of v3 has been accompanied by a new website and a new logo. From the new website: "MINIX 3 is a new open-source operating system designed to be highly reliable and secure. It is based somewhat on previous versions of MINIX, but is fundamentally different in many key ways. MINIX 1 and 2 were intended as teaching tools; MINIX 3 adds the new goal of being usable as a serious system on resource-limited and embedded computers and for applications requiring high reliability." Read on for more information.
Order by: Score:
Cool
by Luke McCarthy on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:02 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

The bzip/IDE download seems to be corrupted though.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cool
by Luke McCarthy on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:13 UTC in reply to "Cool"
Luke McCarthy Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe not, I must've just had a bad download

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool
by Brian on Mon 24th Oct 2005 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
Brian Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, my browser download cut out suddenly with no warning at about 90%. Using wget now instead.

Reply Score: 1

License?
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is it compatible with something else?

Reply Score: 0

RE: License?
by zerblat on Mon 24th Oct 2005 13:28 UTC in reply to "License?"
zerblat Member since:
2005-07-06

The MINIX license [ http://www.minix3.org/license.html ] is (a slightly modified version of) the Modified BSD License [ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD ] (i.e. without the advertising clause), so it should be compatible with pretty much everything, including the GPL.

Reply Score: 2

v X WindowS? WTF?
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:23 UTC
RE: X WindowS? WTF?
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:30 UTC in reply to "X WindowS? WTF?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's noticed like that on Tanenbaum 's website

Reply Score: 0

Some clarification needed
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Well, because MINIX, in combination with Andy Tanenbaum's
> books on operating system design, was the blueprint for what
> later would become the biggest free and open source operating
> system of the world-- yes, Linux

Linux was never based on Minix's code. The author may want to
clarify this statement. We do not want another FUD wave like the
one ADTI started.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Some clarification needed
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:35 UTC in reply to "Some clarification needed"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Linux was never based on Minix's code.

I know. Where did I state otherwise? "Was a blueprint" does not mean "based on". Fact remains that MINIX and the book served a great and important inspiration for Linus. And that should not be left unmentioned.

More info on that here:

http://www.minix3.org/doc/faq.html#legal

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Some clarification needed
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Some clarification needed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I would even go as far as saying that "bluprint" is an overstatement. Not a small one at that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Some clarification needed
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some clarification needed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I would even go as far as saying that "bluprint" is an overstatement. Not a small one at that."

...and you would still be wrong. Do your homework before posting stupidities.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Some clarification needed
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some clarification needed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If anything could be called a blueprint for Linux it would be the POSIX standard.

I've done my homework by reading "Linus Torvalds - Just for fun" about two years ago and I just flipped through it again. What homework have you done?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Some clarification needed
by nii_ on Tue 25th Oct 2005 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some clarification needed"
nii_ Member since:
2005-07-11

I think blueprint is an overstatement.
Minix gave some teaching and inspiration to the programmers of Linux may be towards a more accurate statement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Some clarification needed
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Some clarification needed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I seldom reply to these things, but when I saw the word "blueprint" I thought the exact same thing. Google "define:blueprint" and you will see words like "plan", "guide", "design", and "template". Sounds like it means "based on" to me! "Inspiration", on the other hand, seems like an appropriate term, and my suggestion would be to update the article accordingly.

By the way, I have read both "Just for Fun" (Torvalds book as well as book on CD) and Tanenbaum's OS book, 2nd edition. I was also inspired by the book to write my own little OS kernel, but Minix was certainly not a blueprint. So before anybody accuses me of not "doing my homework" or some nonsense, be aware of that.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Some clarification needed
by libray on Mon 24th Oct 2005 19:05 UTC in reply to "Some clarification needed"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

> Linux was never based on Minix's code. The author may want to
> clarify this statement. We do not want another FUD wave like the
> one ADTI started.

Ahh yes FUD. Thanks anonymous for actually creating FUD where it did not exist in its meaning.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Some clarification needed
by Anonymous on Tue 25th Oct 2005 23:24 UTC in reply to "Some clarification needed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't see the big deal about Thom's statement. Linux starting using Minix, and its modification became Linux. Thus, there's no doubt Minix was the launching vehicle for Linux. Heck, the first Linux filesystem was the Minix filesystem. Having said that, Linux became something else at the end of all, and they are both different animals. But if Minix had not existed, possibly we would not have Linux today, and credit should be due where is due!

Reply Score: 0

v ugly
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:47 UTC
This takes me back...
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...to my uni days. Used to spend ages playing with the MINIX source. Might have to download for old times' sake.

Reply Score: 0

Minix with Xorg, or DirectFB
by Tanner on Mon 24th Oct 2005 11:58 UTC
Tanner
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think its better if Minix, for desktop users, does have a DirectFB implementation under the Desktop Environment, instead of X server.

Reply Score: 1

screenshots?
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 13:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Obligatory begging for some screenies!

Reply Score: 0

RE: screenshots?
by Temcat on Mon 24th Oct 2005 13:03 UTC in reply to "screenshots?"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Wanna have a screenie of a shell prompt? :-D

Reply Score: 1

RE: screenshots?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 24th Oct 2005 13:06 UTC in reply to "screenshots?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Obligatory begging for some screenies!

In Windows:

Start => Run... => "cmd.exe" => Full screen.

In Linux/GNOME:

Applications => System tools => Terminal => Full screen.

In Linux/KDE:

K => System tools => Terminal => Full screen.

In OSX Tiger:

[Apple]+[Space] => "Terminal" => Select Terminal from results => Full screen.

There, screenshots of MINIX ;) .

Reply Score: 5

v !
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 13:08 UTC
Memories...
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 14:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ah.. I used Minix to do my C programing at home during college.

In fact, I started using Linux in 1994 because of the buzz in the Minix community about it....funny to think that many people think an OS I have been using for more than a decade now is "NEW".

Reply Score: 0

Screenshots
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 14:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Since some people have such a poor imagination.. Screenshots! ;)

http://80.237.144.96/~christian/minix_311-screens/

Reply Score: 4

RE: Screenshots
by Anonymous on Tue 25th Oct 2005 01:40 UTC in reply to "Screenshots"
Anonymous Member since:
---

slick~n~glossy!

Reply Score: 0

RT features?
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 14:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I was a bit surprised that Minix is still being developed. But this is good since Minix has been perceived to be the practical starting ground for microkernels.

However looking at the Minix website I miss some documentation regarding Minix's real-time capabilities. Does Minix do _hard_ real-time? And what is it's basic scheduling mechanisms?

If it's capable of doing hard real-time this would be great news for the embedded world for many purposes.

Linux in its current shape will not make it in embedded systems due to its lack of support for HRT. Maybe Minix is the way to go? ;)

What is needed today is an implementation of a microkernel which implements HRT support and also support all the wonderfull applications of the GNU/Linux world. This would rock both the desktop/server world and the embedded world for sure.

Reply Score: 0

RE: RT features?
by Anonymous on Mon 24th Oct 2005 15:41 UTC in reply to "RT features?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I remember reading that Timesys had hard realtime patches for the Linux kernel at 2.4. When I was researching RTOSs they sent me a bunch of documentation on it and explanations about the architecture. It was pretty interesting, though I never actually downloaded their patches and looked at them. It was a good overview of what real-time systems do though.

Reply Score: 0

RE: RT features?
by corentin on Mon 24th Oct 2005 21:07 UTC in reply to "RT features?"
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

> What is needed today is an implementation of a microkernel which implements HRT support and also support all the wonderfull applications of the GNU/Linux world. This would rock both the desktop/server world and the embedded world for sure.

What is the point of a real-time OS for desktop or server use? Desktop and server users want throughput, they do not care about real-time...

Anyway, this is great news but unfortunately the website is 503 for the moment...

Reply Score: 1

new book too
by morganth on Mon 24th Oct 2005 15:32 UTC
morganth
Member since:
2005-07-13

Seems Tanenbaum will provide extensive documentation in the 900pp. book on Operating Systems concepts which uses Minix3 as an example, and comes out 5 days before Christmas.

Hmm, I wonder if I can afford the hobby...

Reply Score: 1

Andy, you are late by 15 years !
by Anonymous on Tue 25th Oct 2005 05:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Had you released this 15 years back, Linus would not have come out with Linux. Linux is usable, now why do we want a great educational OS to be practically usable? Stick to the goal of a good text book OS please.

Reply Score: 0

how fast can you run the source on...
by nii_ on Tue 25th Oct 2005 07:06 UTC
nii_
Member since:
2005-07-11

"Linus Torvalds, then a student at the University of Helsinki, studied MINIX in an operating systems course and was sufficiently impressed that he bought a PC to run it."

So, that implies he was running the Minix code in his mind by reading the source before he decided to run it on a PC? I wonder how many Bogomips he was getting before he got his PC to run it faster for him? ;)

Reply Score: 1

Good in VMWare...
by Anonymous on Tue 25th Oct 2005 23:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

BTW, I helped test Minix3 for throughout the Summer on VMware, and I have to say that it runs awesome on it. It's actually a breeze to install and run on VMware and pretty much any other platform.

After the basic install, which is way easier than before (no diskettes needed), you end up with a workable system. In the case of VMWare, you won't need to even enable (DHCP) networking, as it is up and running by default.

Andy Tanenbaum was working with a few fulltime coders, particular Ben Gras, who did an incredible job.

For example, the driver for the network card on VMware had not been ported/updated for Minix3, and they were nice enough to help me (and everyone else at this point) with that.

A couple of biggies with regards to Minix3 are the following:

-The install is easier than ever before, and faster too. There's no need to deal with 'part' (similar to fdisk, but kind of more complicated)
-Although it still has the requirement of at least two main partitions (root [boot monitor] and user), there's no need to hit '=' or anything else while booting. The exception is the ability to choose memory size before booting.
-cleaner code and many system updates (checkout the book when it comes out)
-gcc: It had been ported years ago, but it was not working; now it is.
-More updated network nic drivers than ever.
-A bunch of applications were ported and work from the start. Note that Minix does not have the 'less' command, as 'more' in Minix does the same thing.

My only complain is that I would love to see the Boot Monitor to go away for good, but that's something small in whole deal...

Reply Score: 0

Two versions?
by DigitalAxis on Wed 26th Oct 2005 01:54 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

What's the deal with the 75 MB 3.1 .iso (link dead) on the previous versions versus the 10 MB 3.1.1 .iso (link active) on the download page? Was the 75 MB image the one from the book?

http://www.minix3.org/previous-versions/index.html
http://www.minix3.org/download/

Reply Score: 1

RE: Two versions?
by Anonymous on Wed 26th Oct 2005 03:33 UTC in reply to "Two versions?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think with earlier releases for a small group of testers that no effort was made to zero out unused blocks in the CD image.

Reply Score: 0

by Lazarus on Wed 26th Oct 2005 20:55 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Taken horribly out of context but interesting to note.

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Subject: Re: LINUX is obsolete
Date: 29 Jan 92 23:14:26 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

"True, linux is monolithic, and I agree that microkernels are nicer. With
a less argumentative subject, I'd probably have agreed with most of what
you said. From a theoretical (and aesthetical) standpoint linux looses.
If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to
even start my project: the fact is that it wasn't and still isn't.
"

From:

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html

Reply Score: 1