Linked by Andrew Hudson on Mon 20th Jun 2011 17:19 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives Haiku Alpha 3 has been in development for more than 14 months. In that time more than 800 bugs have been identified and fixed, major sections have been updated, applications have been added and updated, and great progress has been made in supporting additional hardware. Here is a summary of updates, more details can be found here. Also inside, interviews with some core Haiku developers.
Thread beginning with comment 477888
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Looking Forward to Haiku
by JAlexoid on Mon 20th Jun 2011 22:51 UTC in reply to "Looking Forward to Haiku"
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

outdated monolithic kernel design

It was labelled as "outdated" 20 years ago by Tanenbaum and for some reason is dominating all other Unixes.
If you wish to revisit the discussion, I think the archive is still there from 1991.

PS: If you don't like monolithic so much, why don't you switch to Darwin?

Reply Parent Score: 2

senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

minix isn't a hybrid. it is a true micro-kernel. Technically, none of the above are true micro-kernel OS's. (I think the OS-periment by Hadrien Grasland is attempting to be a true micro-kernel design. At least that is the way I read it).
I don't think Be or Haiku is micro, either, but a hybrid (which is just that, a hybrid. It has micro-kernel features and monolithic features.)

Also, what about Linux's dominance in the server and HPC markets? Those don't count right?

Edited 2011-06-21 01:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Wow its dominating 5% of the market space for pc's. so, its dominating other OS software and only becuase it was the only opensource nix clone kernel for many years.


There are other market spaces other than the desktop, things like server, embedded and mobile. Also there are/were plenty of other opensourced unix clones for many of those years, the BSDs predate Linux by a fair bit for example.


So lets review, windows, hybrid microkernel, mac, hybrid,linux monolithic, given marketshare. the hybrids have it.

the professor appears to be correct.


That is not much of a review, but rather a fairly selective enumeration without any sort of figures. Why don't you review the market share from a mobile or embedded standpoint What about the server or cloud infrastructure space, for example.

Oh, and the professor was not advocating "hybrids" BTW, but actual microkernels. The only commercial example of which I can think right now is QNX. Wanna compare the market share numbers of QNX vs. Linux to see who was right? Not that it matters since you were building an argument to popularity (and a silly one at that), which is a fallacy anyway.

Edited 2011-06-21 02:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

So lets review, windows, hybrid microkernel, mac, hybrid,linux monolithic, given marketshare. the hybrids have it.

the professor appears to be correct.

*cough cough cough*

Most Windows drivers still reside in kernel mode, to the best of my knowledge. The file system driver is also there, in the I/O subsystem. I believe GDI also resides in the NT kernel...

In short, NT is probably highly modular, which to the best of my knowledge is the core point of the "hybrid" appellation (lots of system services residing in independent low-level modules, but a mad pointer or a buffer overflow is still all it takes to take over the world), but calling it a microkernel is maybe a bit of a stretch.

Same for XNU, which started as a microkernel (Mach, IIRC), but has been shoehorned a lot of BSD kernel code in it to the point where it's now closer to a monolithic kernel in terms of kernel-mode functionality.

Edited 2011-06-21 05:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Why PCs?

If you wish to use commercial success as a measure of technical merit (so I presume you're a business major ;-), then I would expect you to examine the fastest growing market segments, where smartphones (Android Linux) and tablets (iOS) are kicking butt.

On the other hand, if you wish to use the selection for the most demanding performance challenges as a measure of technical merit, then I would expect you to examine supercomputers, where Linux is all but ubiquitous.

Using an aging market in which a particular vendor has held a monopoly for well over a decade, since before introducing a totally new kernel in fact, seems like a really bizarre quality measure, frankly. It's almost as if you're selecting data to support your thesis. Hmmm....

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Looking Forward to Haiku
by Phucked on Tue 21st Jun 2011 10:57 in reply to "RE: Looking Forward to Haiku"
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24


PS: If you don't like monolithic so much, why don't you switch to Darwin?


The Darwin/Mac os X kernel is not a Microkernel

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk3.html

The Mach kernel didn't fail; it was the Mach microkernel project that failed. Neither NeXT nor Apple ever used Mach as a microkernel.

Recall that at the time of NeXT's decision to use Mach in NeXTSTEP, Mach wasn't being developed as a microkernel with an external, operating system in userland. Rather, Mach 2.5 simply injected some new ideas on how a microkernel might work into an existing, fat kernel space.

Mach 2.5 was a fat kernel, not the problematic microkernel with horrific performance problems that Mach 3.0 turned out to be.

All the ideological criticisms lobbed back and forth between Linux creator (and fat kernel advocate) Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum (the creator of the Minix microkernel) have nearly nothing at all to do with Mach as it is used in Mac OS X.

More Nails in the Coffin
Once again, just for good measure: Mac OS X is not based on a microkernel architecture, and has never used Mach as a microkernel. Apple's XNU kernel is larger than many monolithic kernels, and does not suffer from the intractable performance failure the world associates with Mach microkernel research.

Apple has incorporated progress the Mach project made in development of Mach 3.0, but nothing changed: Mac OS X still does not have a microkernel architecture. Its XNU kernel is not implemented as a microkernel. Apple does not use Mach as a microkernel.


XNU incorporates many technologies from Mach which makes it different than traditional fat kernels such as BSD or Linux. The microkernel myth confuses the facts by associating [anything related to Mach] with [the failure of the Mach microkernel project], which sought to remove BSD from Mach. Since Mac OS X's version of Mach is full of BSD, this false association is rooted in either ignorance or FUD (or both), depending on who is reweaving the myth.

So there you have it: the Mac OS X Microkernel Myth falls apart on the simple discovery that Mac OS X has no microkernel

Reply Parent Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The Darwin/Mac os X kernel is not a Microkernel


And I never claimed it was. It's just not monolithic.

Reply Parent Score: 2