Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Andrew Tanenbaum Announces MINIXcon (minix3.org)

Posted by timothy on from the will-it-be-big-and-fancy dept.

LichtSpektren writes: Andrew Tanenbaum, author of MINIX, writes: 'MINIX has been around now for about 30 years so it is (finally) time for the MINIXers to have a conference to get together, just as Linuxers and BSDers have been doing for a long time. The idea is to exchange ideas and experiences among MINIX 3 developers and users as well as discussing possible paths forward now that the ERC funding is over. Future developments will now be done like in any other volunteer-based open-source project. Increasing community involvement is a key issue here. Attend or give a presentation.' The con will be held on 1 February 2016 at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

104 comments

  1. Andrew Tanenbaum show middle finger to Nvidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh shit, wrong person ..........

  2. Hurd Developers Incensed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that both the hurd kernel developers were furious when this was announced and plan to boycott. This thing is already a disaster. Sad really....

  3. I wish the seven of them a good time by gavron · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The idea is to exchange ideas and experiences among MINIX 3 developers and users..."

    I wish all seven of them have a good time exchanging ideas and experiences.
    Perhaps they could use email.
    You know.
    Like through a linux server.
    Because.
    That's how it works.

    "If the OSI developers are emailing each other, it's over TCP/IP" -- Steven Belovin, before you were born
    "If the Minix developers[sic] are emailing each other, it's on Linux systems" -- me

    Ehud

    1. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be a dick.

    2. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I would be curious to know how many people are even using MINIX.

      I still have Tanenbaum's operating systems book on my shelf, but once Linux came along I have no idea if anybody is using it for much.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by volkerdi · · Score: 2, Funny

      MINIX is obsolete.

    4. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I read it, the numbers 3 includes ALL developers and users. Getting hotel rooms for the Con shouldn't be a problem.

    5. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Minix will be obsolete just after the need to learn about operating systems is obsolete.

    6. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's on my shelf, too. Thing is, had it come out a few years later, the world would probably be running on it today. When the book came out, there WAS no "internet" as we think of it today; not for individual users. By the time Linux came out (from Minix), there was enough internet infrastructure in place so that people all over the world could form a virtual community to work on the source together.

    7. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by gavron · · Score: 1

      Minix the book came out in 1987. The Internet was developed in 1973, was connecting universities and research centers and companies as the NSFnet in 1985.
      1985 and 1973 are both before 1987 so no, there WAS TOO an Internet when Minix came out.

      Secondly Linux did NOT come out from Minix. Both Andrew Tenenbaum and Linus Torvalds said that.

      I've giving you ZERO out of two possible points for telling the truth and not being a stupid troll.

      E

    8. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by TWX · · Score: 2

      hmmm. Low UID, and "volkerdi" would be a good way to represent a username on a system that might have had an eight-character username limitation at some point. Is this Patrick Volkerding of Slackware?

      To the point though, even if MINIX is obsolete, obsolesecence could simply be that the features needed are not implemented. Granted, the entire framework could be poor to the point that adding on components does not help, but if the framework is solid then even something obsolete might be able to develop past its obsolescence.

      I mention this because a lot of people are upset by some development in the Linux world with Lennart Poettering's contributions. These people might be as ripe to pick-off from Linux as they were to pick-off from BSD back when Linux was young.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Secondly Linux did NOT come out from Minix. Both Andrew Tenenbaum and Linus Torvalds said that.

      It did, actually.

      Linus only started his kernel because MINIX wouldn't take advantage of the features of his 386. It was only later that Linus was convinced by others to make it a GNU-compatible kernel and license it under GPL.

      So the Linux you're using today isn't based on MINIX, but it built on Linus's initial attempt to clone MINIX.

    10. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by slashdice · · Score: 2

      Linus Benedick Torvalds disagrees with you.

      Notes for linux release 0.01

      This is a free minix-like kernel for i386(+) based AT-machines. ... Thus you currently need minix to bootstrap the system. ... The linux kernel has been made under minix, and it was my original idea to make it binary compatible with minix. ... As already mentioned, the linux FS is the same as in minix. This makes crosscompiling from minix easy, and means you can mount a linux partition from minix

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    11. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not based on it but it is built from an attempt to clone it, could you explain how that works? You do know MINIX was originally for learning about operating systems, and Linus was learning about operating systems.

    12. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by nyet · · Score: 1

      ..

      https://groups.google.com/foru...

    13. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's not based on it but it is built from an attempt to clone it, could you explain how that works?

      I guess it depends what you mean by "based on."

      Derived from the MINIX code? No.

      Inspired by and meant to be used similarly? Yes.

      I don't think it matters in any practical way, since now we have both Linux and MINIX, but I'm glad Linus had MINIX to work with to get a leg up on pursuing his own ideas!

    14. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I started studying in 1987.
      And we already had 'internet' then. Not sure what all is called 'internet' though. Some friends of mine claim you could call it internet after we had DNS ... that was 1983.

      Well, there is no real connection between linux and minix, it is said Tannenbaum once had said about Linux he had 'failed the OS class' in the literal sense (Linus was not taking classes from Tannenbaum).

      Friends of mine installed Minix on Atari STs and one had it on an 68k Mac ... I was not much impressed.

      But later I had an obscure Mach based Unix on my Mac, too: MachTen.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      MINIX is obsolete.

      Yeah, no kidding, that's why they made a new version. Try to keep up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      This is Minix 3.
      It is a new microkernel OS that explores some interesting ideas in security and reliability. It is not the Minix you have in your book.
      From www.minix3.org
      What Is MINIX 3?
      MINIX 3 is a free, open-source, operating system designed to be highly reliable, flexible, and secure. It is based on a tiny microkernel running in kernel mode with the rest of the operating system running as a number of isolated, protected, processes in user mode. It runs on x86 and ARM CPUs, is compatible with NetBSD, and runs thousands of NetBSD packages. Get MINIX 3 now and join our community!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    17. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Minix is an amazing learning OS.

      Back in university, we were required to write a simple scheduler, a virtual memory (paging to disk) subsystem, and a FAT16 filesystem on top of a stripped down Minix kernel.

      While that would technically be possible with Linux as well, the reality is that the Linux kernel base is so amazingly huge that a third year university student with no kernel experience has little hope of doing such a set of projects in a single quarter long course.

      --
      My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
    18. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, it's academic.

    19. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I must have read that thread a half dozen times over the many years since. I just reread a goodly portion of it and, wow... Look at the names of the people. I'm not sure what words apply and my word-smithing is not up to the task. How about? "That is a serious collection of legends." I simply can't think of anything better to describe it without seeming to gush.

      'Tis an awesome read and thanks for the reminder of that piece of history. AST also has some stuff up at his site that you can read. He went on to revisit his post at a later date (latter date, maybe?). One of the things that I appreciate about the 'net is that so much is preserved. Assuming the standards remain and remain open, this will be a treasure trove in a hundred years. Well, that and cat videos.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't know they were porting NetBSD's pkgsrc. That's good stuff.

    21. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth would you learn anything if it doesn't even have systemd!

    22. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      As I said:


      no "internet" as we think of it today; not for individual users.


      In other words, yes it had INSTITUTIONAL users, not people dialing in from their homes.


      Secondly, BZZZT! WRONG!


      I think I know which one of us is thea stupid troll -- his nick is gavron.

    23. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by gavron · · Score: 1

      LoL! I'm no troll. Allow me to expound.

      The Internet has been alive and well. I don't know what YOU think of it TODAY so that's not really a definition.
      It was working just great for those of us in universities, at government labs, at companies supporting the Internet, etc.
      I'm sorry you weren't aware of it, and some confusion about internet=html hadn't occurred yet either. gopher was pretty good! (for its time)

      As for #2... BOTH the creator of Minix AND the creator of Linux have both stated quite clearly (in response to the Samizdat book that never got published but was covered on Groklaw) that Linux did NOT in any way come from MInix.

      Andy was upset at Linus because Andy believes in a microkernel architecture and Linus believes in a monolithic kernel. The two disagree, which is allowed and functional. There's room for both. Right now, though, if the minix developers (chortle) are emailing each other, they're doing it on linux boxes.

      I'm no troll. Do you know how you can tell? It's because EVERYTHING I said above is easily proven fact by a simple google search. No need to be convoluted, try to obfuscate the truth, use bing or siri, etc. Just google it. It's all true.

      One more thing, Sir, I use my real name. That doesn't in and of itself make me a non-troll.. but it does give you the ability to (omg google that too) see that I know these facts. I was there. When the Internet "as we know it today" (whatever) was there. Long before Minix. As it will be long after Minix.

      Ehud Gavron
      Tucson AZ
      P.S. I'm not a linux fanboi. I whet my teeth on VAX/VMS. However, the market has spoken (and HP and Compaq are great at turning diamonds into coal) and Linux is the market leader for server OSs and desktops for people too stupid to know when not to click "open this attachment".

    24. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started studying in 1987. And we already had 'internet' then. Not sure what all is called 'internet' though.

      I had to look up the History of the Internet to find that out - evidently the term "internet" was in use since 1974 to describe interconnected networks, but it wasn't THE Internet until NSFNET connected the major NSF supercomputer centers in 1988.

      Interestingly, Wikipedia cites Tanenbaum's Computer Networks for this information. :)

    25. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patrick Volkerding parodies a 1992 Usenet post and thanks to responses like yours is probably wondering whatever happened to /.

    26. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's probably true, except I think he knows what happened to Slashdot :)
      As an apology, I friended him. I have no idea if the apology is accepted or not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down Mr Tanenbum, it was just a joke.

    28. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Those guys should really use join.me or Webex or some such videoconferencing solution. Until they get to the point where Minix sells well enough to enable them all to afford a trip to the Dutch Antilles

    29. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Isn't the Minix in the latest editions of the book ver 3.x? The first editions had the versions that were popular then, but the edition now would probably have the current version of Linux.

    30. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by dev54335 · · Score: 1

      Real funny.

    31. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      It is the MINIX from the book, if you have the third edition (published in 2006). And, if you haven't, then I suggest buying / borrowing a copy, along with Modern Operating Systems (by the same author), both of which are well worth reading. If you want to know a bit more detail about how a more mainstream (for a given value of mainstream) OS works, then the new Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System is well worth a read. If you want to know how a kernel designed for mobile devices should be designed, then Symbian OS Internals: Real-time Kernel Programming is a great reference.

      And I really should have made all of those Amazon Affiliate links, but I'm too lazy...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I have some Tanenbaum books as well. They're among the best-written, most understandable tech books I've got.

      If he had made Minix a little more open back when Linus Torvalds was still in school, OS history might have been completely different.

    33. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      MINIX is obsolete.

      Yeah, no kidding, that's why they made a new version. Try to keep up.

      Taking a page from OS/2 Warp?

    34. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I started studying in 1987. And we already had 'internet' then. Not sure what all is called 'internet' though.

      I had to look up the History of the Internet to find that out - evidently the term "internet" was in use since 1974 to describe interconnected networks, but it wasn't THE Internet until NSFNET connected the major NSF supercomputer centers in 1988.

      Interestingly, Wikipedia cites Tanenbaum's Computer Networks for this information. :)

      The Internet came gradually to civilians. When I was an Amiga developer circa 1987, the primary way we communicated with Commodore was via CompuServe. It was, actually, one of the things I liked about them. Unlike most major manufacturers, which either tend to ignore you or be outright hostile, Commodore's principal developers were friendly, attentive, and actually incorporated your advice sometimes. But that's secondary. They also had true Internet email addresses and Commodore was routing between its own internal network, BITNet and undoubtedly others that I've forgotten. CompuServe served as my first gateway to the emerging Internet services before I actually got a direct ISP hookup.

    35. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by tomxor · · Score: 1

      ... Minix 3 ... the future of anything close to a conceptually stable OS for the future... but you stick with your old Linux based on the obsolete Minix 1.

    36. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Only thing about books now for me is that I only buy them in kindle, so that I don't have to lug them around whenever I move. One downside of that - I won't get the MINIX CD w/ the book as a result.

    37. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon wants $123.99 for the Kindle edition, even though it's out of date. I'm sure you can find it *ahem* cheaper elsewhere online.

      Although the book is still probably the best place to start if you really want to learn all the details of the code, it describes MINIX 3.1.0, which is quite old now, rather than the current release. A new edition of the book may come out one day, but do not hold your breath just yet.

    38. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by unixisc · · Score: 1

      3.1 is not out of date: it's the same microkernel OS that AST wrote. I was under the impression that the old version referenced was 2.x or 1.x, rather than 3.x. Those 2 were not microkernel OSs, as 3 is. As for the price, the hardcopy was something like $79 when I went to college, which was in 1994. This price does seem high - w/ or w/o the CD

    39. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's out of date. 3.1 (and the book) is almost 10 years old.

      For starters, 3.1 contains none of the NetBSD userland stuff that is now standard.

    40. Re:I wish the seven of them a good time by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is now FOSS "BSD" I believe so the source is available on-line. http://git.minix3.org/index.cg...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. Sounds big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will he be holding it in his living room?

  5. Minix 3 is really interesting. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    I hope that Minix 3 gets more interest. When I have time I really want to see if I can use it for NAS.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Minix 3 is really interesting. by tomxor · · Score: 1

      Yeah i think a NAS is more likely to be one of the first things it turns up in, it's intended purpose is embedded where people generally give more of a shit about it not falling over all the time... but that would also be nice for servers, although people start to get a bit more sensitive about performance then.

    2. Re:Minix 3 is really interesting. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      It would be a good router and firewall OS as well, if a project like pFsense or DD-WRT based on it comes along.

  6. Announcement by hawguy · · Score: 2

    Would it really have been so hard to link to the announcement in the summary:

    http://www.minix3.org/conferen...

    1. Re:Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "..since MINIX was the only truly free and open OS at the time"
      Exactly wrong. It was proprietary, (although source was in the book). About a $100, roughly to buy it on floppies.
      If it HAD been free and open, there would have been no Linux, we'd all
      be using MINIX. Linus wanted to make a free program based on his study of Tanenbaum's book. So he wrote one.

    2. Re:Announcement by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      If you click on (minix3.org) which is right next to the submission title, it links directly to the announcement.

    3. Re:Announcement by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I hate that feature. It isn't obvious it's a link, and the equivalent location on Reddit simply lists every article ever posted to Reddit from that domain (which is completely effing useless, but as Reddit does that anyone who uses Reddit occasionally instinctively ignores a domain name that appears immediately after an article title.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link goes to precisely the right place on minix3.org. WTF does Reddit even have to do with it?

    5. Re:Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said it LINKS to the wrong place. We said it's IN THE WRONG PLACE. It's not obvious it's the link to the real article, and other websites, notably Reddit, display something similar that means something completely different.

    6. Re:Announcement by spauldo · · Score: 1

      If it HAD been free and open, there would have been no Linux, we'd all be using MINIX.

      Doubtful.

      Tanenbaum was against unfettered development of Minix. It had an explicit purpose; it was designed as a teaching tool, no more, no less. Bug fixes were welcome, features were generally not. It wasn't until Minix 3 that he allowed it to expand.

      Now, someone might have forked it and created something that fits into Linux's niche, but it wouldn't have been Minix.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  7. Looking backward to it! by plover · · Score: 0

    I'm especially looking forward to the TARDIS ride back to 1989 when this CON might have mattered. I hear it's bigger on the inside.

    --
    John
  8. Well, that's the great thing about UNIX conference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...there's s

  9. MINIX.com by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    I went to MINIX.com, and found I could get an email address - that works right in my browser! - for only 35 dollars a year.

    Oh, minix CON.

    Nevermind

    --
    Dark Reflection
  10. Not your father's Minix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Minix 3 is not the same as the Minix you might still have on floppies or dead trees. Different basis, different goals. Yes, still a microkernel, but meant to be used in production and not (just) as a teaching aid. Check it out at minix3.org before disparaging :).

    1. Re:Not your father's Minix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes let's at least criticise Minix 3. Where is it used in production?

      It has a microkernel and is designed to be fault tolerant. But how unreliable is Linux? It seems to work fine for just about everybody who needs posix like system.
      They are porting NetBSD apps, but if you want to them all you can just install NetBSD on a vastly greater array of hardware.
      The kernel is small but the OS isn't, it requires 1GB of memory and 8GB of disk space, too large for small embedded systems.
      It runs to slow and lacks the features needed for a server.
      As a desktop is has the functionality of an early 90s X windows machine running twm and lynx. Wide hardware support, wifi, Chromium, Firefox, Media players all in the maybe someday category.
      These days android or IOs devices are what people are running. Minix 3 can't do anything they can do.

      So what exactly is Minix 3 for? It's been around 10 years and the only answer seems to be for people who want to play around with a microkernel and write posix shell scripts. And now the research funding has run out.

    2. Re:Not your father's Minix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The kernel is small but the OS isn't, it requires 1GB of memory and 8GB of disk space

      Those are recommended sizes.

      The minimums are 32MB RAM, 635MB of storage.

  11. Argument's silver anniversary by T.E.D. · · Score: 0

    In a way you've gotta admire a guy who will continue to try to wage an argument that he clearly lost 23 years ago (nearly a quarter of a century). That's some serious dedication!

    Now he might actually have had a point or two, but still...

    1. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by jcr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You think Tannenbaum lost that argument? Linus made a complete ass of himself.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you're talking about AST losing, but I don't think either side really 'lost.'

      All the points AST made against monolithic kernels are still valid. He was just wrong about microkernels being the wave of the future - we ended up with most systems using something in between micro- and monolithic.

    3. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      Yes, I say he "lost" in the court of public opinion, because the rough gist of his initial argument was that Linux was going nowhere due to its Kernel design, and Linux and Minix had very different trajectories than this argument would have predicted. How much of that was due to kernel design is debatable, but the argument that Linux was "obsolete" 23 years ago certainly looks silly now.

      If one digs into the details of the debate, not only were a lot of Tannebaum's detailed points quite correct, but Linus wasn't even arguing against them at the time. He was just arguing that for what he was trying to accomplish, Linux's design was better. So you could say they were both right on the details, but it isn't the details that made the argument famous.

    4. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can just see how Tannenbaum won the argument by looking at how Minix installations outnumber Linux ones.

      Tannenbaum may think he won. You may think Tannenbaum won. The world, apparently, thinks differently.

    5. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most people see that argument being over which kernel design is better.

      The world didn't pick Linux because it was a better design, they picked it because it was free and could do more than any other free OS.

      Linus's brilliance was in the way he organized the project and guided development. It meant a LOT of ports and a lot of drivers early on, which meant "easy to deploy." The kernel was a mess at the time. Some would say it's still a mess, since it constantly has to be revised to accommodate new features. The MINIX kernel is stable and flexible enough to go unchanged for a few years at at time.

    6. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the court of popularity gets to decide truth, then artists like Brittney Spears represent the pinnacle of music composition.

      After all, just look at all the air time she gets compared to people like John Cage, who in the court of musical popularity are obviously doing it wrong. And don't let me get started on Tom Waits, who despite being a major influence on just about every musician on the west coast is irrelevant when one compares radio air time.

      Perhaps popularity isn't the right measure of correctness.

    7. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by KGIII · · Score: 1

      More desktop users are using Windows 10 than use Linux - of any kernel number. By that logic, Windows must be better. I'm not sure I agree. I use Linux but that's because it's handy and has a huge ecosystem. I do have MINIX in a VM but, honestly, I've not found a real use for it, for me. I do think the idea, the microkernel, is sound and that it should make a more secure and stable system. There's a loss in speed but we've pretty speedy hardware now. He may win that argument in numbers still. Doubtful but, then again, do the numbers really tell you which is better? Is a Ford Focus better than a BMW 6-series?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      "More desktop users are using Windows 10 than use Linux - of any kernel number. By that logic, Windows must be better."

      Apples to oranges. Windows 10 is an OS. Linux is a kernel. If you mean GNU/Linux, then yes desktop Windows, by that logic, is the better desktop OS (can play latest and greatest games, easier to install, better hardware support, etc). You can include Android and various other systems (embedded or otherewise) that use the Linux kernel, then you have an installed base larger than all Windows versions combined. Many of them power the Net of things, but Android is a front-facing Linux-based system (one of many). For many mobile use cases, Android is the better OS (more difficult than IOS but less confusing than Winphone).

    9. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Those are not desktops. Which is why I quantified it. If the number in use for a task is a mark of a better product than grains of sand would be better than food. The Ford Focus would be better than a BMW. Android 4.2 would be better than 5.0. PHB would be better than competent people.

      There are lots of arguments to be made that say Linux is better - I might even agree with them. But using the number of them in use as a metric is not a very good deterministic approach for quality. There are more ants than there are people. Ants must be better... :/ Better at what?

      No, the number of devices in use don't actually mean the OS is any better. That's like saying that Windows is better on the desktop (Windows also has a kernel) simply because more people use it there. That's like saying Ubuntu is better on the server because more people use it than use Red Hat. It might be truly better but the number of installs isn't the metric to determine that. It's not even a useful metric. If that's the only metric they've got (and it shouldn't be - I can come up with a few just sitting here) then they're really gonna need to go back to square one and try it again.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      After all, just look at all the air time she gets compared to people like John Cage, who in the court of musical popularity are obviously doing it wrong.

      I dunno. Just because he can do a split and punch you in the balls, does that really make him such a great musician?

    11. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      50 million elvis fans....

    12. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by KGIII · · Score: 1

      ...can't be wrong. (I'd forgotten that adage.)

      I like Linux. I use it. I'm using Lubuntu at the moment but that changes kind of often. Hmm... I have been playing with BSD via a virtual machine lately. I don't know a whole lot about the kernel. I wonder if it's more or less monolithic. Of course, well, the BDSs don't really have a single kernel, I don't believe. I think they're all based on the same kernel from back in the mid 90s.

      Wikipedia classifies it (the BSD) as a monolithic kernel. When reading about the microkernel there's a wiki page on Tanenbaum's debate with Torvalds. It's interesting reading though I'm still trying to grasp what makes a nanokernel different and what, exactly, makes one qualify for hybrid status. Ah well... It's good to learn new things.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at NetBSD's rump kernel/anykernel design. It's really interesting!

    14. Re:Argument's silver anniversary by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Thanks! The rump server and the protocol makes it look like it might be trivially easy (comparatively speaking) to speak with devices - not just as a server. Some of the BSDs have great documentation. I don't have a NetBSD VM to spin up but I have the resources to do it. I can just connect to a machine at home and spin it up there. Strange, I know, but that's the situation.

      I am definitely going to have to give that a spin. I don't have a lot of time today but I can get a VM spun up, tested, and make sure it's running well enough. I use VMWare so interacting with the USB would be easy - if I were home to actually plug a USB device in. I've got a spare laptop with me that has VMWare so maybe I'll spin it up there.

      My only real foray into BSD-land has been with a small test of FreeBSD and then an extended test of GhostBSD. I've been really enjoying GhostBSD in a VM - it's been shut down once and I go hammer on it once in a while to see how stable it's going to be. I want to move it to bare metal but I really dislike Firefox and there's an exceptionally small number of choices in that regards. Sadly, it is only my love of Opera that keeps me away from putting it on bare metal on one machine and just sitting down to learn more about it over a few month period.

      I know Opera devs share BSD source files internally and do some work on it. Maybe I can get them to build me one if I ask nicely? Probably not but, I guess, I can try.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. MINIX 3 Developers? by infernalC · · Score: 1

    Please don't be offended, but...

    Is that a version number or a head count?

    1. Re:MINIX 3 Developers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is that a version number or a head count?

      "Developers! Developers! Developers!"

      "Okay, that takes care of attendance... what's next on the agenda?" :)

  13. Obsolete by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MINIX is obsolete.

    Even if assuming that's the case: okay, so what? Things that are considered 'obsolete' are used in many places, every day, doing their thing. Often better than if done by a modern 'equivalent'.

    From what I've read, MINIX has some unique features that mainstream OS'es don't have. For that reason alone there's a place for it. And it's useful as a way to learn the inner workings of an OS. Not as big and complex as an OS that supports everything under the sun.

    Still not good enough hey? How about as a research vehicle? To try some new concepts that haven't been tried elsewhere. Do things that have been done elsewhere just a little different, and see how that works. Or just for the fun of it.

    Especially us /. users should applaud and appreciate projects like this. There used to be a time when it seemed as if every company were working on some OS or programming language of their own. When hobbyists where beating bare metal of their PC's in assembly, even up to a GUI or 3D games. These days... not so much. Most software news these days is new releases of existing software. New versions of existing operating systems. Some new way to make existing software X work with existing software Y. Projects like MINIX that are still developed (even if slowly) are few and far between.

    Last but not least: if you're not interested: fine, that's OKAY. But no reason to mock an interesting project simply because it's not your cup of tea.

    1. Re:Obsolete by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      MINIX is obsolete.

      Even if assuming that's the case: okay, so what?

      LOL ... me I'm giving the GP the benefit of the doubt of making a really good reference.

      The first occurrence of this debate was recorded on January 29, 1992, when Tanenbaum first posted his criticism on the Linux kernel to comp.os.minix, noting how the monolithic design was detrimental to its abilities, in a post titled LINUX is obsolete.

      Because Tanenbaum once said the same thing about Linux.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Obsolete by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      lol I've read that thread before, but I missed this post by Linus:

      And reply I did, with complete abandon, and no thought for good taste and netiquette. Apologies to ast, and thanks to John Nall for a friendy "that's not how it's done"-letter. I over-reacted, and am now composing a (much less acerbic) personal letter to ast. Hope nobody was turned away from linux due to it being (a) possibly obsolete (I still think that's not the case, although some of the criticisms are valid) and (b) written by a hothead :-)

      Linus "my first, and hopefully last flamefest" Torvalds

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, good thing it did not happen again.

  14. MinixCon by timcullen2010 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The children on this thread are hilarious. So what if people want to get together and talk about a project that interests them but may not interest you. Why do you care? Keep using Linux if thats what you prefer but at least grow up enough to not be but-hurt when other people enjoy working with something else.

  15. Frosty by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Tanenbaum: Do you think I should hire a limo?

    Mrs Tanenbaum: To shuttle them to the conference, dear?

    Tanenbaum: No, to hold it in.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. yeah but then you have to travel to Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On your own dime, for a hobbyist OS, that's not relevant.

    nopenopenope.jpg

  17. 1990 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1990 called, and Minix answered: "Hello, Minix here. I'm new and current and the best thing you've seen. There isn't anything else like me." And then 1991 came, and then suddenly it was late 2015. Andrew Tanenbaum missed an opportunity. Linus Torvalds didn't. Torvalds got rich and fostered an empire. Including phones, tablets (under the Android monicker) and routers and net appliances, Linux runs at least half of anything connected to the internet. Minix runs on Andrew Tanenbaums home computer, when he has it turned on, and is not running something else. Its an ok system to learn about operating systems, except that its all slanted to what Tanenbaum thinks a good operating system should be (macrokernel bad, microkernel good), and there are no improvements like "loadable kernel modules" that can change his mind, and no problems like "message passing bottleneck" that he won't overlook. 25 years later, Minix looks much like it did 25 years ago. 25 years from now, you will be able to find the source in a dusty book in the library somewhere shelved under "historical technology". 25 years from now, Linux will still be running a large portion of the internet.

    1. Re:1990 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make Linus sound like Bill Gates.

    2. Re:1990 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus Torvalds, the first guy to get rich selling free software...

  18. Wat? by truck_soccer · · Score: 3, Funny

    never heard of it. I'm gnu to this stuff.

    1. Re:Wat? by trastomatic · · Score: 1

      you really never hurd of it?

  19. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I speak for everyone when I say, ...people use Minix?

  20. get your goddamn fax outta my view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough of your kind already! i am a believer of linus, our lord and saviour! be gone, devil with the fax!

  21. A little late? by X10 · · Score: 1

    Dear Andy, you kept Minix to yourself for decades. What happened to make you change your mind, 30 years late?

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:A little late? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Minix 3 has been freely available now for almost a decade.

  22. Hey Andrew, how about a RaspPi port? by astrojetsonjr · · Score: 1

    I've poked at Minix off and on for the last two decades, I've even taught OS classes using Minix as the source case. It's pretty cool. Its pretty clean code, and it's pretty easy to follow. Now it would be nice to have a portable platform to be able to use. There is more than a few Pi's around, it would make a great place for people to play. For an OS learning environment Minix is great. It's in the realm of Unix V6 or FreeDOS. Linux is a great OS (using it now) but for a lean teaching tool it's too big to manage. I'd love to be able to teach on the Pi. But the port to the ARM platform has been stalled. It would be nice to have a Pi port.

    1. Re:Hey Andrew, how about a RaspPi port? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to be able to teach on the Pi. But the port to the ARM platform has been stalled. It would be nice to have a Pi port.

      Pi is still in the sky, but can't BeagleBone meet your needs in the meantime?

    2. Re:Hey Andrew, how about a RaspPi port? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      operating systems have reached a plateau and are going nowhere

      I would like to see a new direction:-
      * a one design (like the raspberry Pi). so more focus and less of a moving target
      * KISS even at the expense of performance. opens the codebase up to more people . (also more secure because of "more eyes")
      * configurability using recipes. turns the computer into an appliance. (I have looked at chef knife etc and find it too complicated. )

      this will allow lots more people on this planet to make meaningful contributions that can be easily shared and improved. computing for the masses

      with regard to configurability. I want to be able to cut and paste a single JSON file to completely configure my system eg Wi-Fi, VPN, scripts, Cron, passwords, installs, yes – everything. that would be awesome

    3. Re:Hey Andrew, how about a RaspPi port? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Is even that project anywhere near complete?

  23. USERSPACE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just pkgsrc. They tossed out the minix 3.2 userspace and replaced it in its entirety with netbsd.

  24. Minix then & now by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Their versions from 3 onwards were pretty different from 1 & 2. About as different as Windows 95 and Windows NT. 3 onwards was a microkernel OS. While the versions 1 & 2 were indeed small kernels, Tanenbaum never claimed that they were microkernels, the way he did about Amoeba, or later, Minix 3.x.

  25. seriously ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minix is 30, and has about as many users...

    Tanenbaum could probably hold the meeting in is living room... :-)

  26. thanks Andrew by ldom · · Score: 1

    I don't have any opinion on the state of Minix today but I'm certainly grateful to Andrew for his books and the knowledge he's passed to us.

  27. Amoeba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Amoeba?