Linked by David Adams on Thu 1st Mar 2012 22:39 UTC, submitted by Andy Kosela
OSNews, Generic OSes MINIX 3.2.0 stable is released. Major features include: Asynchronous, multithreaded virtual file system (VFS) server, Better reliability, Better virtualization support, and much more.
Thread beginning with comment 509238
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by broken_symlink
by tuma324 on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by broken_symlink"
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

"In a way I think it proves that professors can be wrong sometimes, too.


How does minix using a tool that has nothing to do with the disagreement between Andy and Linus make him wrong in any way?
"

Perhaps I've used the wrong words, I just think there's some irony in this.

I mean, Linux became bigger than MINIX and Git was created as a result of Linux development and growth.

Andrew Tanenbaum in that post said that Linux would have no future due to its monolithic design, now they're using Git, which came out from Linux development not a long time ago.

Was Andrew right or not?

Edited 2012-03-02 07:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

jayrulez Member since:
2011-10-17

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Why would you put your laptop directly over your nutsack? Do you have tiny legs or something?

Reply Parent Score: 3

4nntt Member since:
2009-02-12

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Minix shouldn't be using GIT, just that as it grows larger its utilization of tools that were born out of necessity to support Linux, who's popularity the author of Minix severely underestimated, is somewhat ironic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

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 overheating issues you mention seems to be more of a hardware issue than anything else.

I've tried running several Linux distributions in different laptops, I know my Dell used to overheat like crazy, but my ThinkPad doesn't.

Perhaps your overheating problems are caused by the hardware itself?

What laptop do you have? I do not experience any overheating issues with my ThinkPad T520, in fact, the laptop remains cool all the time. Heck, I can put the laptop on my bed compiling the full kernel in parallel and it won't overheat.

Also, read this:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/22/569
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/24/338

Moving drivers to userspace is not a solution to buggy drivers. The solution is to keep reporting bugs so those bugs can be fixed, microkernel or not.

When drivers are stable, as they should be, microkernel vs monolithic doesn't matter much anymore IMHO. The microkernel design most likely will just be using more resources and it will feel slower with all the message-passing IPC mechanism.

Just keep reporting bugs if you find any. This is the way of stability, not microkernel.

Edited 2012-03-02 17:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Too often I see Torvalds' minions spreading FUD about minix, general misconceptions etc...
Agreed: fanboys are annoying but that's not a reason to spread FUD yourself too..

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.
FUD: micro-kernel improves modularity but performance isn't modular, so there no reason why performance would be significantly better or worst with a microkernel..

Linux has had to evolve to stay relevant. It will have to continue to evolve. So will minix.
I hope, but for now Minix has to evolve to become relevant not to stay relevant which Linux already is (more or less depending on your needs).

Reply Parent Score: 2

johndaly Member since:
2006-01-16

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Tanenbaum thought that Linux had no future because of its architecture and he was right!

No, it's the same architecture, it's still monolithic.

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.

Tanenbaum's criticism was not leveled at the lack of portability, it was at Linux being monolithic. That Linux nowadays only loads the modules into memory that it needs doesn't change it from being monolithic, they become part of the kernel! So no, Tanenbaum was wrong, Linux is a success, a much bigger success than any micro kernel.

There was a surge of micro-kernel optimism back then in academia which spilled over into commercial/open source space, resulting in failed projects like Apple mkLinux, IBM Workplace OS, Hurd, and of course Mach itself.

Micro-kernels have the benefit of architectural stability at the cost of performance and system simplicity.

If monolithic kernels were indeed prone to crashing then the industry would have moved towards micro-kernel architectures a long time ago. However they are not, which means that monolithic kernels provide both stability and performance. Certainly there are areas in which measures towards stability trumps any performance considerations and in these areas something like a micro-kernel which can keep on running should one component fail would indeed be attractive.

...start over from scratch to build a theoretically better or purer architecture.

Emphasis on 'theoretically better', which is often the reason academia (theoretical) and real world (practical) go different ways.

Reply Parent Score: 1