OSNews

There is a bug too with VirtualPC 2007 ;-(

I'm using VirtualBox 4.1.
As I mentioned in the above post I also tried qemu and, while MINIX sort of works there, I can't get a network connection with it. It struck me as odd since I was able to get a previous version (I think 3.1.x) working without any trouble.

I am using Virtual Box 4.1.8 and install seems to be going fine.

Why is that ironic?

Linus was one of the designers of GIT, apparently him and the creator of Minix do not (or did not) get along when it comes to their views on OSes.

But their views on oses have nothing to do with their views on scms...?

I have never heard or read about them not getting along. Mind pointing me to a source/reference?

Thank you in advance

Edited 2012-03-02 04:48 UTC

Oh, the great debates?

This doesn't suggest that they don't get along. It only proves that they have different opinions regarding the design of os kernels.

Of course professors can be wrong but they usually aren't .

Professor Andrew seems to be even more humble than Linus.

Using git has nothing to do with the architecture of os kernels so I don't see the irony.

If Andrew started accepting monothilic kernel designs in his kernel then that would be ironic.

Sometimes a joke is just a joke...

Sometimes a bad joke is just a bad joke...

Considering that VxWorks and QNX are very successful micro kernel OSs, that both Microsoft and Apple have a partial micro kernel approach in their OS, I would say that Andrew was/is quite right.

Remember also, with this particular holy war, such gems as L4 ("one billion L4 kernels" in Qualcomm-based mobiles 1.5 year ago, who knows how much now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#Commercial_deplo... ) or INTEGRITY (flew a modern airliner or... jet fighter lately? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_(operating_system)#INTEGRITY-178B )

Edited 2012-03-04 21:00 UTC

Minix was not always free(as in speech).
Minix was initially just a research operating system. It's just since recent times that Andrew let known his ambitions for minix.

Too often I see Torvalds' minions spreading FUD about minix, general misconceptions etc...

Would u suggest that minix use inferior SCM tool just to avoid this perceiced irony? Avoid every and anything related to linux or its creator?
That would be cazy :/.
There is no irony in Andrew's team using git. Andrew has never publicly disagreed with anything git or related to git.

Was Andrew right or not?

You decide. Linux is widely used though a failure on the desktop. Linux is a huge piece of software, which is difficult to learn and maintain. Many distributions are unstable. Right now I'm using ubuntu which is forcing me to choose between having children in the future and resting my laptop on my lap because it goes well over 80 degrees C whenever I play any media or connect to my desktop over vnc. Sometimes I try to play a mp3 and for some reason the os hangs, then dies. If a microkernel like minix will offer me greater stability than this, then I welcome it.

The linux of yore was nothing like the linux of today. Linux has had to evolve to stay relevant. It will have to continue to evolve. So will minix.
Success for linux doesn't mean failure for minix or vice versa.

In the near future, minix will not be directly comparable to linux because linux is just a kernel while minix(3) is a full operating system.

You are talking about a conversation from 1992!

Tanenbaum thought that Linux had no future because of its architecture and he was right! The Linux architecture back then was a monolithic kernel that was NOT portable at all. Our modern modular and portable Linux is a totally diferent animal.

Linux was right too, MINIX was an incomplete academic teaching toy and NOT free.

Both where right and over time we got a better Linux AND a better MINIX even if MINIX still has some way to before it becomes truly useful.

Consider the situation back then.
MINIX not free and a toy. Linux incomplete, monolithic, x86 only and more or less crap. BSD involved in a lawsuit. We had no good choices at all and now if you want a *NIX your best choices are all free AND we have so many of them that we get to argue about the best choice too!

When it comes to the issue which kernel architecture is better I really don't give a shit. Linux proved one thing (well Linux AND HURD proved one thing), it is easier to improve what you have then to start over from scratch to build a theoretically better or purer architecture.

It seems Linus' original post announcing he was going to do something called Linux was the last time he seemed to be a nice guy.

Since then he has turned to a rude and very easy to dislike bastard.

But hey, the Linux crowd loves this.

Actually Linus just speaks him mind.

I have heard myself saying the same things when being frustrated with people moaning about "browser X" ... being a web dev myself.

He is direct and honest ... I rather deal with someone like him than someone who smiles to my face and wishes to stab me in the back.

I see this similarly to the "Strict by fair" teachers ... these were always the best teachers, because you knew what they expected.

Its still funny.

Yes, its different software than they were arguing about, but they were really arguing about philosophies of software development. Pragmatic vs Academic. Linus is the ultimate pragmatist, IMHO. Git was designed with the same pragmatic philosophy ( "screw disk space, I need speed").

This along with the increased use of NetBSD code, shows that Minux is becoming more pragmatic all the time.

Edited 2012-03-02 15:50 UTC

Its give and take policy