Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Sep 2009 23:12 UTC, submitted by Still Lynn
Microsoft Most of us are probably aware of Singularity, a research operating system out of Microsoft Research which explored a number of new ideas, which is available as open source software. Singularity isn't the only research OS out of Microsoft; they recently released the first snapshot of a new operating system, called Barrelfish. It introduces the concept of the multikernel, which treats a multicore system as a network of independent cores, using ideas from distributed systems.
Thread beginning with comment 386378
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kad77 on Sat 26th Sep 2009 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kad77
Member since:
2007-03-20

You don't think the hardware will adapt?

I doubt it, seems logical that new processors will be designed with pipelines facilitating nanosecond IPC.

Microsoft just provided very costly R&D to the IT community free of charge, and is signaling to their partners that theoretical technology is now practical to some extent ....

... and in essence communicating that they should plan accordingly!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by tobyv on Sat 26th Sep 2009 05:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

Microsoft just provided very costly R&D to the IT community free of charge


Very costly R&D, or very cheap PR?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kad77 on Sat 26th Sep 2009 05:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

It certainly was very costly in terms of time, effort and the skilled labor to produce it.

It's safe to say this end result (the down-loadable code) cost at least a million USD to produce.

It served both R&D and PR purposes ... 'cheap' is a matter of perspective, though.

If there is a cadre of hobbyists who have released an alternative, I would love a link!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Ed W. Cogburn on Sat 26th Sep 2009 07:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

You don't think the hardware will adapt?


Can it, while remaining compatible with the existing architecture? Intel/AMD aren't going to break the backwards compatibility of the x86 arch without a darn good reason. Keep in mind that backwards compatibility is largely why x86 has been so successful.

And if this were easy, wouldn't it already have been done by now? After all, message-passing is also at the heart of the microkernel concept, an idea that has been around for decades but has gone absolutely nowhere because of, as the GP sarcastically pointed out, bad performance.

I suspect they're going to need some hard proof of really dramatic improvements before Intel/AMD will pay attention to them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kad77 on Sat 26th Sep 2009 18:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

I never mentioned x86, you did.

As you can see in the very graphic inlined in the article, this technology was developed for heterogeneous architectures.

Obviously, non-x86 only.

My point that some hardware could well evolve to take advantage of this technology stands unmolested.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Ender2070 on Sun 27th Sep 2009 04:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Ender2070 Member since:
2009-07-24

You don't think the hardware will adapt?

I doubt it, seems logical that new processors will be designed with pipelines facilitating nanosecond IPC.

Microsoft just provided very costly R&D to the IT community free of charge, and is signaling to their partners that theoretical technology is now practical to some extent ....

... and in essence communicating that they should plan accordingly!


hardware will never adapt. microsoft doesn't make an OS that doesn't require new hardware.

another point, microsoft will never use this in any of their products or they wouldn't have given it away. being message based means its slow so they realize its useless and they're trying to look good by giving something away they've appeared to work on for the last few years (but gave up on in reality because its useless)

Reply Parent Score: 2