This thread is impressive. The idea that I can read old USENET posts is absolutely amazing. The idea I can reply to them is even cooler.
First of all, Yes, Tanenbaum was wrong, but the discussion here will last far longer than LINUX will.
Second of all, for the first internet "flame war", this was likely the most mild flame war I've ever seen. If people were "Flaming", they were certainly more cordial!
As an aside, I wonder what happens when I post here. Does it only update to Google Groups, or am I actually posting on the USENET? (I'm pretty sure it's the latter, because Groups should allow me to post to the USENET proper, but I'm not sure).
On 03/13/2012 01:59 PM, derrick.greens...@gmail.com wrote:
> As an aside, I wonder what happens when I post here.
> Does it only update to Google Groups, or am I actually
> posting on the USENET? (I'm pretty sure it's the latter,
> because Groups should allow me to post to the USENET proper,
> but I'm not sure).
One thing I heard is, linux 2.6 kernel doesn't support many old hardwares.
What is that exactly?
Is it because some device drivers removed because of bulkiness of 2.6?
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:41:32 AM UTC-4, Tonton Th wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 01:59 PM, derrick.greens...@gxxxx.com wrote:
> > As an aside, I wonder what happens when I post here.
> > Does it only update to Google Groups, or am I actually
> > posting on the USENET? (I'm pretty sure it's the latter,
> > because Groups should allow me to post to the USENET proper,
> > but I'm not sure).
> Welcome in the good old real Usenet.
I thought Google Groups quickly fixed this mis-feature?
But with respect to the topic of the thread:
"MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go."
How things change. As far as Minix v3 is concerned, "all the world's an x86"; downloads don't even bother naming the single supported platform: http://www.minix3.org/download/index.html
Maybe it will eventually be ported to ARM. But portability in general is, sadly, no longer a goal for the project.
> I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
> LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what > it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
> As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the
> evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars,
> revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
> job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.
> As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
> are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:
> 1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
> Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
> system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
> contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
> rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360, > MULTICS, and many more.
> The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
> runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
> by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
> interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
> Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
> not-yet-released Windows/NT.
> While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
> two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
> operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
> The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
> is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
> fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
> Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.
> MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
> are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
> also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
> nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
> a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
> That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
> BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.
> 2. PORTABILITY
> Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
> 8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
> the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
> 80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
> the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
> 100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
> These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
> is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
> run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
> wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
> ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
> gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
> not going to be around all that long.
> MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
> Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
> LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.
> Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people
> who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would
> suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a > microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.
> P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user
> space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
> like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s,
> one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.
Yeah, this is the famous and epic discussion between Linus Torvalds and Andrew S. Tanembaum about Linux kernel architecture and how Tanembaum thinks that monolithic kernels are inferior to microkernels.
> I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
> LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what > it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
> As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the
> evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars,
> revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
> job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.
> As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
> are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:
> 1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
> Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
> system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
> contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
> rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360, > MULTICS, and many more.
> The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
> runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
> by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
> interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
> Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
> not-yet-released Windows/NT.
> While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
> two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
> operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
> The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
> is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
> fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
> Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.
> MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
> are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
> also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
> nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
> a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
> That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
> BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.
> 2. PORTABILITY
> Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
> 8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
> the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
> 80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
> the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
> 100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
> These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
> is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
> run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
> wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
> ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
> gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
> not going to be around all that long.
> MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
> Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
> LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.
> Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people
> who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would
> suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a > microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.
> P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user
> space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
> like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s,
> one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.
Wow,wish that either Linus or Tannenbaum would be my teachers...If any of you two ever start to work for the Technical Polytechnic of Zagreb I will be very happy.
On Wednesday, January 29, 1992 6:53:33 PM UTC+5:30, ast wrote:
> I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
> LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what > it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
> As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the
> evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars,
> revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
> job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.
> As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
> are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:
> 1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
> Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
> system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
> contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
> rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360, > MULTICS, and many more.
> The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
> runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
> by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
> interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
> Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
> not-yet-released Windows/NT.
> While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
> two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
> operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
> The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
> is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
> fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
> Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.
> MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
> are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
> also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
> nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
> a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
> That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
> BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.
> 2. PORTABILITY
> Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
> 8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
> the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
> 80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
> the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
> 100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
> These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
> is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
> run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
> wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
> ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
> gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
> not going to be around all that long.
> MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
> Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
> LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.
> Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people
> who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would
> suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a > microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.
> P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user
> space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
> like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s,
> one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.
Welcome to 2012! 20 years, I have my own Linux distro! :D The future is now a thing of the past! Feels so great seeing so old threads!
> I would like to at least look at LINUX, but I cannot, since I run
> a 68000-based machine. In any case, it is nice having the kernel
> independent, since patches like the multi-threaded FS patch don't
> have to exist in a different version for each CPU.
> I second everything AST said, except that I would like to see
> the kernel _more_ independent from everything else. Why does the
> Intel architecture _not_ allow drivers to be independent programs?
> I also don't like the fact that the kernel, mm and fs share the
> same configuration files. Since they _are_ independent, they should
> have more of a sense of independence.
> David
> #################################################################
> David Megginson meg...@epas.utoronto.ca
> Centre for Medieval Studies da...@doe.utoronto.ca
> University of Toronto 39 Queen's Park Cr. E.
> #################################################################
El miércoles, 29 de enero de 1992 09:20:50 UTC-5, David Megginson escribió:
> I would like to at least look at LINUX, but I cannot, since I run
> a 68000-based machine. In any case, it is nice having the kernel
> independent, since patches like the multi-threaded FS patch don't
> have to exist in a different version for each CPU.
> I second everything AST said, except that I would like to see
> the kernel _more_ independent from everything else. Why does the
> Intel architecture _not_ allow drivers to be independent programs?
> I also don't like the fact that the kernel, mm and fs share the
> same configuration files. Since they _are_ independent, they should
> have more of a sense of independence.
> David
> #################################################################
> David Megginson meg...@epas.utoronto.ca
> Centre for Medieval Studies da...@doe.utoronto.ca
> University of Toronto 39 Queen's Park Cr. E.
> #################################################################
ast, time proved you were wrong, yet, you are the best dinosaur I ever know, greetings from cuba.
> I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
> LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what > it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
> As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the
> evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars,
> revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
> job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.
> As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
> are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:
> 1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
> Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
> system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
> contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
> rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360, > MULTICS, and many more.
> The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
> runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
> by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
> interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
> Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
> not-yet-released Windows/NT.
> While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
> two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
> operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
> The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
> is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
> fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
> Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.
> MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
> are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
> also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
> nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
> a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
> That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
> BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.
> 2. PORTABILITY
> Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
> 8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
> the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
> 80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
> the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
> 100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
> These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
> is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
> run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
> wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
> ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
> gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
> not going to be around all that long.
> MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
> Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
> LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.
> Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people
> who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would
> suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a > microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.
> P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user
> space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
> like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s,
> one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.
And since Usenet does allow threads to last and last, and since Pr
Tanenbaum did not put an "Expire" header on his post, Google Groups
offer you the opportunity to post to that thread. Even posts completely
off-topic to that thread (or to this group comp.os.minix as well.)
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Antoine Leca wrote:
> usama.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I am very surprised to read this thread.
>> Was there Google and Google groups in 1992.....?
> And since Usenet does allow threads to last and last, and since Pr
> Tanenbaum did not put an "Expire" header on his post, Google Groups
> offer you the opportunity to post to that thread. Even posts completely
> off-topic to that thread (or to this group comp.os.minix as well.)
No.
Google moved to a new interface, and allowed replies to messages older than 30 days. 30 days wsa the way from the beginning, and really is proper for old messages. They had it that way from when they took over the dejanews archive. A previous time they changed the interface, and put the bug in, but after complaints it was fixed. I have no idea if they removed the vandalism to old threads, but that time back some years did cause stupid responses just like now, the idiots attracted to a thread that google itself has pointed out as "historic", at one point they put up a timeline of usenet and pointed to specific posts, including this one.
I'm tired of fighting with google, so I've never bothered complaining this recent tiem. Their current interface may be fine for a web-based newsgroup, but it's not right at all for Usenet. It doesn't even show dates, or even where the message is posted to (so nobody knows about cross-posting.
There is no reason to reply to old messages. The conversation has moved on, if someone saved the message at the time and gets around to it later, that's different from someone replhing through google years later. The posters just drop the thread into the newsgroup, they are oblivious to where it's going. They often don't even quote. Suddenly a mystery message appears in the newsgroup without context, people reply without even wondering where the rest of the thread is.
The replies usually offer nothing new, they ignore that the thread back 20 years ago had plenty of answers, likely sufficient. The replies ignore the fact that whoever posted back when may no longer be reading the newsgroup. Indeed, when some idiot replies to an old message that was offereing something for sale, the original poster may not have been there except to post his ad.
All of these replies are from idiots who think it's "cool" to reply to an old thread, like they were actually around 20 years ago. They haven't even added anything useful, just a bunch of "me toos".
The only reason I've not bothered replying to condemn these idiots is because this is a historical thread, and I didn't want to add my vandalism. But since you've just given approval to it, I had to speak out. Don't ecnourage the idiots.
As an aside, deajnews only started in 1995 or 96. Their archive is what google bought. But then google tracked down older archives of a more limited nature, putting them together, which is why there is now an incomplete archive going back to the start of Usenet, 1979. It's those other archives that kept this thread, and the vandalism is because of google, and because of the idiots who reply.
