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)
Path: e10ni94578610qan.0!nntp.google.com!l8no14858572qao.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12595@star.cs.vu.nl>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=93.138.44.203;
 posting-account=qXvyDAoAAAD0Z7GN1qdMDD-CKRQz1mg7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93.138.44.203
References: <12595@star.cs.vu.nl>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6f6b1501-6c3e-4cfe-8b00-d75a93c0a248@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: LINUX is obsolete
From: mkamen...@tvz.hr
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:45:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dana srijeda, 29. sije=C4=8Dnja 1992. 14:23:33 UTC+1, korisnik ast napisao =
je:
> 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=
=20
> it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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:
>=20
> 1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
>    Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operat=
ing
>    system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.'  This binary
>    contains the process management, memory management, file system and th=
e
>    rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,=20
>    MULTICS, and many more.
>=20
>    The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
>    runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel.  They communica=
te
>    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.
>=20
>    While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of t=
he
>    two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually desi=
gn
>    operating systems, the debate is essentially over.  Microkernels have =
won.
>    The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and the=
re
>    is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
>    fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers com=
paring
>    Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shouti=
n`.
>=20
>    MINIX is a microkernel-based system.  The file system and memory manag=
ement
>    are separate processes, running outside the kernel.  The I/O drivers a=
re
>    also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dea=
d
>    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 ide=
a.
>=20
>=20
> 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=
t
>    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=
r
>    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=
n
>    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=
n
>    wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
>    ftp.cs.vu.nl =3D  192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.)  I think it i=
s a
>    gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that =
is
>    not going to be around all that long.
>=20
>    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.
>=20
> Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX.  It will get all the peo=
ple
> who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back.  But in all honesty, I wo=
uld
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> Andy Tanenbaum (a...@cs.vu.nl)
>=20
>=20
> 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=
86s,
> 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=
 very happy.