Slashdot Mirror


The End Of Minix?

Otter writes "Minix is best known as the Unix clone for x86 that inspired Linus Torvalds to write one himself. It's pretty much dropped off the map since. The latest patch for XFree86's xterm drops support for Minix. As the changelog notes, 'Juliusz Chroboczek noted it was removed from XFree86 server; there have been no users since 1996.'"

45 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. The question is by Compact+Dick · · Score: 5, Funny

    will Andrew T. [Minix's creator] start another flame war? :-)

    1. Re:The question is by Soko · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doubt it, though I wonder if Mr. Tanenbaum will ever want to change his mind and give Mr. Tovalds "a passing grade" for his kernel design. ^_^

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Give me a break. I know you're all Linus fanboys ("yes, Mr. Torvalds!" "excellent idea, Mr. Torvalds" "That's a great tie, Mr. Torvalds"), but all the Minix guy did was put forth his opinion that microkernels were the wave of the future, and then had that turned into a personal thing. Read the exchange

  2. so XFree86 = usage stattistics? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    since when were you required to run XF86 when you ran any Unix-based OS?

    Just b/c they feel that there have been no users since 1996 (which is probably the case, but not the point) that means the end of Minix?

    At least get some real proof it is dead before you put such scandalous headlines on the frontpage ;)

    1. Re:so XFree86 = usage stattistics? by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actially the shame of this is Minix(VMD) and X make a seriously slim little X terminal on crappy old hardware.
      This is a shame, as I learned on Minix, and still have a spot in me heart for it.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:so XFree86 = usage stattistics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...why would I use it?"

      To browse the web. Lynx and co are nice and all, but the web really was the one final killer app in favour of the GUI.

      The entire web paradigm is built graphical manipulation. You simply can not get a good web experience from the CLI.

      Everything else you could argue, but not the web.

    3. Re:so XFree86 = usage stattistics? by qortra · · Score: 5, Informative

      I entirely agree; Minix was never much for Xfree. Visit Andrew T's FAQ:

      "Is MINIX dead?
      Oh no. Far from it. It is simply focused on the target area it was always focused on: education. The excursion into hackerland was a detour. A co-author, Al Woodhull, and I have rewritten the MINIX book based on the new, POSIX-compliant, version of MINIX which Kees Bot produced. It is still be aimed at having students be able to learn the principles of operating systems and most of a real system in one semester. "

    4. Re:so XFree86 = usage stattistics? by arkanes · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't even really want to think about what kind of freak gets off looking at the ALT tags of porn pictures.

  3. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, considering that Minix made Linus Torvalds want to write his own OS, is that really much of a compliment to Minix? I'm surprised it still had that support. But you know, without Minix, you have to wonder if we'd have anything like GNU/Linux right now.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by ceswiedler · · Score: 5, Informative

      The big problem with Minix wasn't technical, but political; any changes that were made to it couldn't be released except as patches (i.e., you couldn't change it and still call it Minix). Linus bitched once that Minix was only usable with a set of patches by a developer other than AST.

      So the real influence of Minix on Linux was in the GPL. Linus was certain that he wanted to release his code under a license which encouraged change, because of his experiences with Minix. And in fact, it is the GPL which distinguishes Linux from other x86 Unices such as the BSDs, much more than anything technical.

  4. "Minix is dying!"? by Mage+Powers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this post makes me think of that BSD is dying stuff ;o
    Minux is dying! Clearly you can see that because its users don't use X windows!

    Just had to ;)

  5. If Linus were Homer... by stevens · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I'd expect to see a post to comp.os.minix that had a single line:

    In your face, Tanenbaum!

    1. Re:If Linus were Homer... by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The ironic thing is that Tanenbaum's argument is now correct, even though it was not ten years ago.

      Nobody would now would make a new monolithic kernel if they were in their right minds. However, nobody now would make a new Mach-alike if they were in their right minds either. Microkernels have finally proven themselves to be up to the job of being the basis of serious operating systems (e.g. BeOS, QNX, ChorusOS etc), but they're not the kinds of microkernels that Tanenbaum was advocating in 1992. Microkernels of the time spent far too much time shifting data between servers, whereas modern microkernels a) do at most as much address-space shifting as a monolithic kernel, plus b) they're even more "micro".

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:If Linus were Homer... by Timmeh · · Score: 5, Funny
      Man, I was going to wait until Google groups cached this so I could provide an HTML link, but it just can't wait.
      From: "Kevin Snaden" <kevin@technokev.com>
      Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
      Subject: In your face, Tanenbaum!
      Message-ID: <UF5r9.538333$Ag2.20790885@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
      Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 04:11:32 GMT

      In your face, Tanenbaum!
      It would seem someone took your advice :P Made *me* laugh.
    3. Re:If Linus were Homer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You miss the same point that all the newly baptized Linux zealots miss when they read that seminal thread.

      The point? Tanenbaum is a *Professor*. The key line "If you were my student, I'd give you an F." -- and he's right. From an academic standpoint, Linux's design was and mostly is completely uninteresting. He's not arguing for microkernels as much as telling a student that plagurizing 20-year old monolithic Unix wasn't exactly groundbreaking work.

      The interesting parts of Linux (free versus $1000/seat, the development model, the licencing) probably belong in a Sociology or History of Technology paper rather than in the Computer Science department with Tanenbaum.

    4. Re:If Linus were Homer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      eh?

      QNX is an industry-proven, source-available-proprietary, hard-realtime OS. It's certainly a "serious operating system".

      BeOS wasn't a microkernel in the first place.

      MacOSX is not a microkernel, despite having Mach (bleurgh) code in it - device drivers are not shielded from eachother as in a true microkernel like QNX.

      The Hurd is a collection of interacting processes intended to be based upon a microkernel. Mach-Hurd does indeed suck royally. L4-Hurd should not.

  6. Learning Source by antibios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Minix makes an awesome unix OS to learn from. You all must agree that it doesn't have to be used as a production machine, it's really quite suited to use for teaching students.

    1. Re:Learning Source by ceswiedler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because it's relatively simple. Have you ever compared Linus's original .99 version (the first he released publically, or anyway the first that I can find) with a modern 2.5 kernel? It's orders-of-magnitude more complex. Minix was designed to follow academic operating system principles, above practical issues such as performance. Because of that, it was easy to understand and teach.

    2. Re:Learning Source by oh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Minux wasn't intended to help you learn how to use a UNIX, it was intended to help you learn how to write UNIX.

      It was written to be used as lab work for Operating sytem courses. I don't know about the "no users since 1996" comment. As recently as 1999 (when I was last in University) a group of undergrads were writing a process migration system for it.

      While I agree BSD or Linux are probably much more practical for production use, they are a bit more daunting to the programming student.

      --
      Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
  7. What I would like to know is... by messiertom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there have been no minix users since 1996, why did they wait six years to drop support?

    1. Re:What I would like to know is... by stwrtpj · · Score: 4, Informative
      If there have been no minix users since 1996, why did they wait six years to drop support?

      Why do many TERMCAP databases contain vt100 definitions even though most people use a windowing system of some type? Why is the term tty used to describe your login session/device on many UNIX OS's when teletypes went out of fashion years ago? Why do we still refer to the act of the cursor returning to the beginning of a line as a carriage return?

      Most likely the answer is cultural inertia. People are loathe to change things that either work just fine the way they are or simply show no pressing need to change them.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    2. Re:What I would like to know is... by falzer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, you never know when all hell could break loose. That's why you should keep an old vt100 behind a glass case for when the shit hits the fan, and you need a terminal, pronto!

      "BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY"

  8. is this really a question? by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 5, Funny

    If there have been no users since 1996, is there really a need for the question mark in this article's headline?

    --

    --
    pants ahoy
    1. Re:is this really a question? by BitGeek · · Score: 5, Funny


      There are 25 million mac users, at least.

      I'm not aware of any hippie communes that got larger than 25 people total-- at some point the fighting over women destroys the idea.

      On the other hand, there were some religious sects that were able to grow their communes much more, and were much bigger than 25 people.

      But they were only able to do this because they used religion to eliminate sex, and its attending issues.

      Since Mac users get far more sex than the average computer user, (according to Gartner and IDC) this is not the case for Apple's market.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  9. Eh by Junky191 · · Score: 5, Funny

    *Pours out some of the Colt 45 for the OS's from my hood that didn't make it* I'll miss you man.

  10. educational by capnjack41 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't it more of an educational tool these days, rather than a practical OS? I think every CS student had to buy Tanenbaum's book for their OS class. I think it's more of a prototypical UNIX that's good for studying how OS's actually work.

  11. Minix is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Minix is dying

    Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Minix community when last month IDC confirmed that Minix accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Minix has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Minix is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Minix's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Minix because Minix is dying. Things are looking very bad for Minix As many of us are already aware, Minix continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Minix leader Julien states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of X86 Minix are there? Let's see. The number of X86 Minix versus 68K Minix posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 68K Minix users. PPC Minix posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of 68K Minix posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of PPC Minix. A recent article put X86 Minix at about 80 percent of the Minix market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 X86 Minix users. This is consistent with the number of X86 Minix Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Minix went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that Minix has steadily declined in market share. Minix is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Minix is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Minix continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Minix is dead.

    Minix is dying

  12. Re:I had to say this... by messiertom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.

    The name "GNU/Linux" is derived from the fact that almost all Linux distros make good use of the GNU tools. Minix makes no use of them.

  13. Let's not forget ... by vlad_petric · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... that, leaving aside the political debates, flamewars, etc, Minix was the operating system from which Linux was bootstrapped (IIRC the very first Linux versions were compiled under Minix, had the Minix fs "hardcoded" - way before VFS existed, etc.)

    So, while it may be dead (some may claim that it wasn't ever really alive), it is still alive through one of its most successful offsprings, our most beloved Linux!

    The Raven.

    --

    The Raven

  14. It's still around by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    True, not many people are using it on the desktop anymore, but there are still a number of things that Minix excels at. It was adapted to embedded computing before Linux, for one thing, because it could run the 286 processor in extended mode. It makes a much more efficient/lightweight server than any *BSD, and is actually responsible for a large segment of the Apache userbase on the Internet yet goes underreported because the server string in the apache-minix package says Linux. Additionally, the code is (IMHO) much easier to follow for CS students, and demonstrates many more esoteric yet practical systems engineering principles than can be found in its fork (Linux).

    So no, I wouldn't fire off that 'Minix is dying' troll just yet; the presence of Minix filesystem compatibility in its friendly rivals betrays the foothold Minix yet retains among many of the computers that power the Internet today. We wouldn't argue that Linux is dying simply because it doesn't have nearly the desktop share of Microsoft Windows, because we are aware that it is churning away out there just beneath the consciousness of most computer users. So too we should remember that Minix occupies as well a place within our hearts as well as within the Internet.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  15. Was it superior by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even though Minix is long dead, there still is a good question: was a microkernel architecture better, or is Linux's monolithic kernel the right way to go?

    WindowsNT uses the microkernel design, but most operating systems since DOS haven't used a monolithic kernel, which was only truly necessary in the days of extremely scarce resources. It's true that Linux does extremely well under many circumstances, but could it have been done even better with a nice, modular, microkernel design?

    If history had changed and Minix took off instead of Linux, would we be better off today with the superiority of a microkernel design?

    I think we would.

    1. Re:Was it superior by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe in microkernels. Just look at QNX. Ever tried to make a decent Linux boot floppy? It's hard, and would be easier if the kernel were more modular. Fortunately, it is moving in that direction. The MINIX file system is still available, and makes a very good choice for floopies: full file permissions and very little space wasted. ext2 takes up half the floppy and reiserfs doesn't even fit on it. MINIX may be dead as a production system, but its legacy lives on, and it's still good for OS courses, which is what it was made for.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:Was it superior by rweir · · Score: 4, Informative

      WindowsNT uses the microkernel design

      Er, no. It started off as microkernel, but things keep getting but into kernel space for performance reasons: thusly.

      If history had changed and Minix took off instead of Linux, would we be better off today with the superiority of a microkernel design?

      Hehe.

      In conclusion: microkernels may or may not be theoretically `better', may or may not perform better, but they are fuckloads more work to do right.

  16. Minix is a toy by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    Minix is a toy. But that's not a bad thing, and people are still playing with it.

    Minix was written to give some "real-life" examples for a textbook on operating system design. The guy who wrote it wanted to keep it simple, so that it would be easier to understand.

    Back when there wasn't a free *NIX, some people hacked on Minix to turn it into less of a toy and more of a real operating system. The biggest obstacle was licensing issues: Minix is owned by a book publisher, and you needed to deal with them if you wanted to do anything with Minix. If you just wanted to be legal to use Minix you could buy a copy of the book, but anything else (trying to distribute on CD-ROM for example) was pretty much impossible.

    If Minix had been released under GPL, Linus might have simply written patches for it, rather than ginning up his own project. Linux would have likely never happened, and I would be using Minix to type this rather than Linux. This is nice history lesson about the importance of software licensing.

    Anyway, between the *BSD family and Linux, we have plenty of *NIX operating systems to use; we don't need one more that is stuck back at the toy level and has a messy license. So people are not working on Minix to make it less toy-like anymore.

    Because Minix is a toy, you can read the book and dive right in to the Minix code base. You can hack around with it and have a good time. As long as people still read the book, Minix will be a useful toy.

    The efforts to grow Minix beyond its toy status are dead. Minix itself remains educational and fun.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Minix is a toy by foonf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Minix is owned by a book publisher, and you needed to deal with them if you wanted to do anything with Minix. If you just wanted to be legal to use Minix you could buy a copy of the book, but anything else (trying to distribute on CD-ROM for example) was pretty much impossible.

      Actually Minix was finally relicensed under a BSD-like license recently, albeit 10 years or so too late.

      --

      "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  17. The REAL Question is by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is wrong with the slashdot editors that they can't call it by its proper name: GNU/Minix !!!!

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  18. Minux is a teaching OS by Katz_is_a_moron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comparing Minux to Linux is like comparing a wagon to a Lexus. Minux was never designed to be a production O/S. It was designed to teach for students taking a first course in operating systems design.

  19. Re:Minix is NOT dead. by mj01nir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, we're still out here. From what I can gather from the MINIX-L list, it has more of a following outside the US. There seem to be few folks in the Middle East and Southeast Asia using it. Still not a large number in any case.

    It may not be Linux, but what the hell else am I gonna run on an IBM 5150? Besides, I keep telling myself that "someday" I'll learn how to code, then hack around with it.

    --
    the no .sig .sig
  20. I'm going to be the only user! by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm downloading it now, just to say I'm the only user left!

    Please, dont download it and ruin it for me.

  21. +1, Funny by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 4, Funny

    A new variant on the tired:

    "God is dead" - Nietzsche
    "Nietzsche is dead" - God

    can be:

    "Linux is obsolete" - Andy Tannenbaum
    "Minix is obsolete" - Linus Torvalds

  22. Karma whoring by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's the obligatory link to Tanenbaum's 1992 "Linux is obsolete" post.

  23. Aw man... by Lord+Puppet · · Score: 5, Funny


    I just installed Minix on my XBox, and now I find out that it's dead.

  24. You know... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, there's some poor bastard out there reading this on a machine running Minix who just read the line, "no one's used it since 1996". Imagine for a moment, if you will, how that person must feel right now...

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  25. From the horse's mouth.. by irexe · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is an entry from Tanenbaum's personal faq. I think this explains fairly well why the comparison between Minix and production unices is fundamentally crippled:

    What do you think of Linux?
    I would like to take this opportunity to thank Linus for producing it. Before there was Linux there was MINIX, which had a 40,000-person newsgroup, most of whom were sending me email every day. I was going crazy with the endless stream of new features people were sending me. I kept refusing them all because I wanted to keep MINIX small enough for my students to understand in one semester. My consistent refusal to add all these new features is what inspired Linus to write Linux. Both of us are now happy with the results. The only person who is perhaps not so happy is Bill Gates. I think this is a good thing.

  26. Minix = great OS on old hardware/embedded by Florian · · Score: 4, Informative
    I fail to see why dropped XFree86 support would kill Minix - as it doesn't make much sense to run Minix on hardware powerful enough to run an X server. After trying several alternatives (Small Linux with kernel 1.0.9, FreeDOS, V2OS), I found Minix an excellent OS for a laptop with a 386sx/20Mhz CPU with 2 MB RAM and 40 MB hard disk. On this hardware, Minix gives me a fast-running, stripped-down Unix shell environment comparable to Busybox (or respectively, Linux rescue floppies like Tomsrtbt), with a decent vi clone (elvis-tiny), a C compiler (!) and full man page documentation. It is a very sound choice for turning fleamarket hardware into a word processor with the Uni toolchain (grep, sed, sort, make etc. - for a full list see here). Exchanging data between Minix and other OSes is a snap thanks to Minix-fs support in the Linux kernel and the availability of mtools for Minix. With its academic background, Minix is a very cleanly designed, BSDish OS. Its major drawbacks are lacking job control (suspending, backgrounding and foregrounding processes), an almost DOS-like limitation on the length of file names and, unless you use the MinixVM fork, no virtual memory.

    Since Minix has been put under the BSD license since April 2000, I wonder why nobody has made an effort yet to port it to embedded systems (PalmOS PDAs with Dragonball CPUs, for example, should be an ideal target). Minix should be much better suited for many embedded applications than the much more complex Linux kernel.

    --
    gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70