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.""
I've heard that Microsoft Singularity sucks.
(Go ahead, mod me down... I deserve it.)
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
So, a new OS that can distroy all data AND matter.
So much more advanced than a BSOD.
Reliability, eh? Obviously, their web server isn't based on this OS.
Current setup was slashdotted within six comments.
Future setup will place an "emphasis on dependability instead of performance".
I'd say it sucks galactic black holes through buckytube, but that still wouldn't approach the Singular suckitude we're looking for.
Bite my dimly red-shifted neutronium ass.
Will the user interface be called Event Horizon?
"Because when we blue screen, all of your data goes down into a black hole."
Tee hee giggle snort. That was funny! I'd say more, but Full House is on! Cya!
"Derp de derp."
Last week, the latest build of Windows Vista became so horrendously bloated that it underwent gravitational collapse... coincidence?
Come to think of it - has MS EVER written their own OS from scratch?
Go figure.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
here's jim larus and galen hunt talking about their project.
I saw and worked on this a bit while interning at Microsoft. Although what I say is my own and doesn't reflect Microsoft in any way, it's important to remember that this is a research operating system, so its not challenging or replacing Windows. They have some very good, solid ideas. I hope that, someday, it will be released.
fnord.
This is just a research OS written in C#.
Microsoft Research is always making things Microsoft never uses. Remember all the 3D navigator stuff they were crowing about years ago?
I think Microsoft Research is a place to keep eggheads working and happy so they don't go working somewhere else.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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?
Have you actually read any of the papers?
I am an OS academic, and we take Microsoft Research seriously, because they're fucking good.
HotOS is a pretty serious workshop for Operating Systems research. Microsoft Research, among others, pays for the conference room. Singularity isn't far enough long yet to get into a bigger conference like SOSP or OSDI, but you can be sure it will in a year or two.
I wouldn't call Singularity pseudo-academic.
Try checking out the Microsoft Research page, and their past systems stemming from there. You might be surprised.
The relentless bashing of Microsoft in this manner is tiring. Have they made flawed products? Absolutely, but to generalize their contribution to modern computing as nothing more than theft and good marketing is pure garbage. However such posts are good at karma whoring...
B O R I N G
I don't understand your complaint. They wrote some papers about their research project, why wouldn't they put them on their site? Before you dismiss the quality of the papers, you want to actually read them.
As far as I can see, the language in question is not exactly "new" anymore, being C#. In other words, this is sort of a demo OS written in a managed-code environment as a way to test various OS principles (which in this case sound a lot like the virtualization stuff that so many other vendors are also doing). Singularity seems like the equivalent of writing an operating system in Java for a school project.
Breakfast served all day!
If you read the paper, the idea is that, yes, it'll be slower, but the reliability will be built in from the beginning, rather than other systems which take something fast and bolt reliability on. They make a good point that they will be able to use optimising compilers for CLR languages in this context, too.
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"
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:
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.
Wow, and the last time I saw a /.'ed site spewing MySQL and Apache errors I thought it was just me. Because, well, I've heard that using open source will automagically upgrade your DSL to a T3. Free!
Moron.
Better question: when's the last time anybody wrote an OS from scratch?
As far as I can see, the answer to that is really "never". Before there were OSes, there were collections of macros to act like device drivers and such. The first OSes were based on those, and added slightly more uniform interfaces and such.
Pretty much everything since can be traced back to something previous.
DOS 1.0 was based on QDOS, but DOS 2.0 was essentially a complete rewrite that was really based much more closely on UNIX than on QDOS.
In fairness it should also be added that QDOS was based on (according to some, just a re-compile of) CP/M. Lest any CP/Mers get all holier-than-thou about it, in his original announcement letter about it to "Doctor Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia", Gary Kildall openly stated that CP/M was derived from DEC RT/11. I'll assume there aren't enough DECies left to bother debunking the notion that RT/11 was entirely original.
I'd say the others are much the same way: on one hand, MS contributed more originality than you imply, and on the other hand, others contributed less than you imply.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
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
Seriously, ALL operating systems borrow concepts from earlier versions and the existing state of the art. Trying to determine the degree (or not) of "innovation" is akin to arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, with no prior agreement as to the size of an angel...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
PDF of the Microsoft paper
[SIG] Far better to be thought a fool then to post on
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.
I dislike MS production software and business practices as much as the next guy. But don't make the mistake of underestimating MS Research just because you dislike MS.
The two are very different beasts.
EROS uses C and relies on memory management hardware for isolation. EROS also can't analyze or verify code it loads.
Singularity uses C# and does not use memory management hardware for protection; it guarantees isolation via runtime checks, and it can perform extensive code analysis on load.
I don't know whether Singularity is going to make it, but I have used and developed on systems like it (the idea isn't new), and it is a lot nicer than either UNIX kernels or EROS-like kernels.
I'm only replying to the parent so that this post is high up the screen.
3 5.pdf
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-2005-1
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I already wrote about this four days ago so I won't repeat the whole thing here. Short version:
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.
How about IXMLHTTPRequest, or what everyone now so fondly calls AJAX now that its all the rave.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.