Slashdot Mirror


The Microsoft Singularity

jose parinas writes ""Microsoft Research has published the first details of a wholly new operating system under development called Singularity, designed new from the ground up, built on a new language and designed with emphasis on dependability instead of performance.""

11 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. Re:another longhorn? by filesiteguy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nah, that was XP, which was built from the ground up. No relation at all to NT.

    Come to think of it - has MS EVER written their own OS from scratch?

    • DOS - Borrowed from Tim Patterson's QDOS.
    • Windows - Shell extention to DOS
    • Xenix - AT&T/Berkley clone
    • OS/2 - Co-built with IBM
    • NT / XP / Vista - Built off of OS/2

    Go figure.

  2. singularity on MS' channel 9 vlog by lopati · · Score: 4, Informative

    here's jim larus and galen hunt talking about their project.

  3. Re:Papers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For what it's worth, HotOS is an actual respected academic workshop. It was sponsored by Microsoft, but then again, Microsoft sponsors lots of real, respected academic conferences.

    The Singularity project is run by top-notch researchers with very good reputations in the academic community. This is the real deal.

    I think Slashdot has an acronym for things like the parent post... FUD, was it?

  4. They aren't the first by ndogg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out EROS for an implementation that exists now. Granted, EROS itself is no longer being developed, it was definitely around before this OS, and EROS has spawned some new projects (look on the link for links).

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  5. Re:Lack of Dynamic Loading by zootm · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quote from Galen Hunt (apparently someone working on it) from the Channel9 video page (I have to say I've not watched the video, at least yet, it's just interesting wherever developers actually reply to queries), says something about this:

    In Singularity, you can add new code to your application. However, instead of loading it into your own process, you load it into a child process. The OS facilitiates setting up channels between the child and its parent.

    While this is still very much a work in progress, the results so far look promising. For example, we have a dynamic web server that uses child processes. Also all of our device drivers run in child processes.

    I don't know if that directly answers your question, but I think it kinda explains how they're dealing with this sort of thing.

  6. Re:Papers? by shadowmatter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also it's worth noting that, first, HotOS isn't "invite only." That's why there is a call for papers on the web site referenced by the grandparent. Second, the review is double blind, so there's no chance of papers submitted by Microsoft Research getting special treatment by the reviewers. So I'm not really sure what the grandparent is alluding to.

    MSR isn't the first research group to think of using new language constructs to enforce security. Check out this paper on Asbestos, appearing at SOSP, for something similar. But one thing is certain: MSR has a large pool of talent and the money to push this research endeavor farther than any other company or academic institution could, and that is something exciting.

    - shadowmatter

  7. Direct Link to Microsoft PDF by Skier4Life · · Score: 5, Informative
    --


    [SIG] Far better to be thought a fool then to post on /. and remove all doubt.
  8. Re:another longhorn? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 4, Informative

    Windows NT and VMS isn't a conspiracy theory or a myth. It's not dirty.

    Recently I heard a talk about the Windows kernel given by a guy from Microsoft. At the beginning of a talk, he said, "There are only two operating systems that matter." After the audience buzzed for a while, saying to eachother, "That jerk, Linux matters too!" or "That jerk, OS X matters too!" or "That jerk, BSD matters too!" He said something like, "You guys don't seem to like that, so what's the third?" One guy shouted out, "Windows!" The MS guy said, "Well, if you mean 'evil Windows', that is, Win95/98/ME, then it probably isn't even third. There are two operating systems that matter and they are Unix and VMS." He explained that for the most part ideas from VMS, rather than from Unix, shaped the design of the NT kernel. Looking at the Russinovich article, many of the things he lists as similarities are also similarities with Unix and many are similarities with any modern OS. Some, like the Object Manager, are specific to VMS and Windows. But overall, as long as DEC and MS came to some kind of agreement over any shared concepts or code, it's no knock on Microsoft, just as it's no knock on Linus for implementing a Unix-like OS. Better to borrow some things from a proven design and get a good product than to forge off on your own and make wierd mistakes.

  9. IMPORTANT by MountainMan101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm only replying to the parent so that this post is high up the screen.

    Look at page 31 of this PDF. Microsoft publish benchmark statistics showing Linux (and FreeBSD) to be better than Windows.

    ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-13 5.pdf

  10. Re:another longhorn? by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is just a research OS written in C#.

    No, it's written in Sing# which is an extension of Spec# which is an extension of C#. People really ought to pay more attention to Spec# - it's a nice extension of C# that allows for more formality if and when you require it. It's in the same class of language as SPARK which is an extension of Ada, JML which extends Java with specification semantics, BitC, Extended ML, HasCASL, and I guess to a lesser extent things like Eiffel and D.

    Think of it this way: static types and type signatures for functions allow you to specify things about the software that the compiler can statically check and make sure there aren't any silly errors. The languages listed above (to varying degrees) allow for more exacting specification about the software, and hence you can (with the right tools) do far more comprehensive static checking and ensure various properties of the software. The difference is that, with most of these languages, the amount of specification is optional - you can be as exacting as you want where you need it, and not bother where you don't. It's like a dynamically typed language that lets you declare and use static types (and check them)just for those areas of code where it matters (except you start with static types and can provide more exacting specification where it matters). It's well worth checking out.

    Jedidiah.

  11. Yawn by Salamander · · Score: 5, Informative

    I already wrote about this four days ago so I won't repeat the whole thing here. Short version:

    • Microkernel design, single-address-space implementation: good
    • Extensive compile-time checking of code that eventually runs native (not interpreted/JIT): good
    • Checking protocol behavior as well as lower-level function contracts: great
    • No deadlock/livelock checking: ok for now (it's a hard problem)
    • No checking of responses to component failure: oops
    • Not even a mention of making it distributed: weird

    Even shorter version: lots of great ideas, lots of work still to be done. Anybody with a clue about operating systems should be following this with interest.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.