Message from discussion LINUX is obsolete
Received: by 10.224.70.131 with SMTP id d3mr6748920qaj.0.1348839952822;
Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.71.38 with SMTP id r6mr1676351vdu.12.1348839952799; Fri, 28
Sep 2012 06:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=18.104.22.168;
Subject: Re: LINUX is obsolete
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:45:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dana srijeda, 29. sije=C4=8Dnja 1992. 14:23:33 UTC+1, korisnik ast napisao =
> 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 operat=
> system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
> contains the process management, memory management, file system and th=
> rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,=20
> 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 communica=
> 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 t=
> two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually desi=
> operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have =
> The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and the=
> is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
> fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers com=
> Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shouti=
> MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory manag=
> are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers a=
> also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dea=
> nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX=
> 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 ide=
> 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 bega=
> 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 ove=
> 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 happe=
> 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 eve=
> wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
> ftp.cs.vu.nl =3D 22.214.171.124 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it i=
> gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that =
> not going to be around all that long.
> MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from=
> 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 peo=
> who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I wo=
> suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a=20
> microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.
> Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)
> 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 3=
> 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 y=
ou two ever start to work for the Technical Polytechnic of Zagreb I will be=