Slashdot Mirror
Linus on Amiga decision
amiga_dude
sent us an article that has a ton of information about the confussion and
questions surrounding the recent
Linux Amiga QNX
news that has been sprouting up. This one is a pretty good
catch all piece with some Linux words as well.
Tapping into the existing base of X software is the only way they will succeed. They need to have a critical mass of software apps, and Linux/BSD running on X is the only viable alternative to Windows right now. It doesn't matter how good their OS is, they will end up struggling along with Be if they don't realize this.
I'm all for dumping my apps every two years and starting from scratch, but most consumers are like lemmings.
This article is amusing, the author has clearly never even seen any of QNX's software let alone used it! The comparisions he makes with Linux are simply laughable. For instance, Linux's IP stack may not be the best in the world, but QNX's certainly is no better right now - Neutrino was not created soley for Amiga, I imagine that QSSL was asked if they could provide a real time OS by Amiga and simply re-fitted a few things they were already doing for their real customers.
The concept that Neutrino is an OS without a market is even more amusing, last year our little company easially shipped 1000 Neutrino licenses, and we are not a big customer. I assure you that QSSL and their OS's will be just fine without Amiga.
As for the clueless people who post things like 'I want this for my next OS!' - Get a clue! The cost alone should be frightening enough to change your mind: 1100$ USD for a runtime license and another 2000$ for the development tools, and even then it is only interesting if you are going to cut code for it.
Due to over-moderation, slashdot has become as unstimulating as a cold day old bowl of Cream of Wheat.
The most frightening aspect is that there exists these slashdot femme-men who are so frail as to be offended by Wakko Warner's pithy observation that holding out hope for the Amiga is akin to trying to will a rotting corpse back to life.
These moderaters are like toothless old women whose only meal can consist of well gummed Wonder Bread which has been further softened by a soaking in tepid tap water. Do colleges graduate anyone with guts anymore? Or are they all sheep?
And for the record, I don't happen to agree with Wakko Warner on his point; I'm merely shocked that anyone would feel the need to moderate down his comment.
None of the "It's OK to use Linux as the Amiga's new kernel" posts have managed to address one of the key reasons for using QNX as the kernel.
:)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Real Time
The only way to succeed in a true multimedia OS is to have deterministic timing. This allows you to create awsome effects hardware like the Video Toaster (lack of deterministic timing is why it's taken so long to see an adequate replacement for the toaster on newer OS's), and powerful media software like Scala. The sort of thing that Amiga Inc were talking about reviving. Unfortunately Linux doesn't address these problems - even with the RT-Linux patches (which are a good start). It seems to me a big waste of Amiga's time and resources to hack in real time code back into the kernel, when they had a great (possibly the best) real time OS waiting to be used.
I wait with interest to see what they come up with, but I'm not selling my Linux box down the river yet, I can't wait for the WindowMaker theme to come out that emulates the LAF...
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Everybody seems to be gushing how "this means Amiga will run Linux apps out of the box."
Of course, that won't happen unless they're using X, the same libraries, etc., etc.--in other words, if it is "just another distribution."
The best info I can garner is that the Amiga will just be running the kernel, although nobody's clearly stated that yet. Does anyone know?
--
This article is the major reference for the RFC and is written by the same guy as the RFC. It also has a lot of tough criticism of other systems, including Solaris and several BSD-dervived stacks. Windows gets a fairly clean bill, and they are very critical of Trumpet Winsock.
I tried to check Dawson's paper, but his server seems to be down.
For the other problems in the RFC they were either clearly marked as BSD problems, or I couldn't follow up the references. (Either because there weren't any, or because they were paper and not online.) The RFC doesn't name names, so it's impossible to say which of the others Linux has been guilty of, or is guilty of.
I think Holger Kruse should tell us what his 4 workarounds are, that he has been forced to put in to work around Linux. Linux has plenty of stuff put in to work around other people's mistakes of course. I guess having to put that sort of thing in your code can make you arrogant.
Why? Jutify "QNX is a horrible operating system"
It is *very* lightweight and *very* stable, two things that all desktop operating systems at this time are not (with perhaps the exception of BeOS but lets not argue about that one right now) It is stable to the point that it can run for years, and survive drivers misbehaving and other *core* system components being changed. Linux is pretty good, but not *that* good.
Unfortunately with QNX they were going the right way, but I feel that this decision to use linux is not the right one (even though I love Linux) - Note that the decision appears to have been made by management and as such is hoping to ride the current Linux [hype/bandwagon/frenzy] that appears to be in evidence.
~Pev
There's an obvious dividing line: the system call gateway. Anything that implements a system call is part of the kernel; anything else is userspace and hence is unaffected by the kernel's licence. By this definition, glibc is an application just as much as Oracle is. (It's just an application used by practically all other applications. You can envision writing a system call interface for another language, such as Java or M3, and then writing the userspace code completely in that language, with no C code or library at all.) Amiga can therefore build anything on top of the kernel that they want, and can use any licence they want for the components.
Bruce is just an old fart -- he's talking about the pre 1.0 days when the Linux kernel was distributed by punch card, and fit in your hand to boot.
:-^
To put this in context, Mr. Kruse developed Miami (Modem Internet for AMIga) and Miami Deluxe (a full-featured TCP/IP stack with routing, IP-NAT, etc. built in). More info can be found at Nordic Global.
I only mention this to say that Holger's not some half-read crackpot who's just spouting off - he really does know what he's talking about.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
There was a time when the entire kernel source in .tar.gz form fit on one floppy and Linux didn't network. Then there was a time when it didn't network well. Then it networked well, but slowly. Then it was the fastest monoprocessor TCP/IP implementation. Then it networked well on multiprocessors, but slowly...
Get the point?
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't think that free software precludes a tighly focused group of engineers, though. There is lots of evidence for the contrary, especially where the Linux kernel team is concerned.
I agree that X is moribund, but of course there are free software efforts like Berlin to replace it on Linux. I don't care much that the Amiga won't run X, as long as you can port GDK and CORBA you can run the GNOME tools.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I found the criticism of Linux' TCP/IP rather laughable, because I remember not very long ago one of the primary criticisms of Linux was that it didn't have TCP/IP. Whatever you don't like about Linux' TCP/IP implementation will be fixed soon enough. Meanwhile, it runs fast enough to saturate my 768/768 DSL while the Pentium 120 CPU is loafing along. I can wait a year for it to be fast enough to saturate a DS3. The criticism regarding other OS having work-arounds to interoperate with Linux applies to Linux 1.x (or other old versions), and of course those problems are long gone (along with the FIN_WAIT problem he mentioned). The criticism about lack of IPV6, etc., is bogus, he's not been keeping up with Linux' development.
Someday, Linux development will taper off and we'll switch to another system - maybe even a message-passing system like QNX. But the system we switch to will be free software, because of its fast evolution, not proprietary like QNX.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'm not a recognized expert on the GNU General Public License, but methinks I see a problem here:
The GPL, which the Linux Kernel is distributed under, is viral. Any code that makes use of the Linux kernel must, therefore, be distributed under the GPL or a license that is compatible with the GPL.
Also, if the GPL'd software makes calls to other software or libraries, those software or libraries must also be distributed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. The only exceptions to this are, basically, operating systems.
So how will this new Amiga OS be licensed? If they really are going to be using the Linux kernel, then it _must_ be distributed under a Free Software license. I can't see any way around it. I find it difficult to believe that Gateway would be willing to do this, my opinion is that they either a) haven't thought this through, or b) think they've found a way around it.
I think everyone should watch this very closely, and this question ("what kind of license?") should be asked, very pointedly, over and over again, until they answer.
This could be a very important precident for free software - if Amiga thinks they can use kernel technology licensed under the GPL without in turn freeing up their source code, they need to either a) be convinced otherwise or b) be taken to court. If option b), then we'll see exactly how legally binding the terms of the GPL are.
Then again, never discount the possiblity that I am WRONG.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
The new soap opera starring an OS which has been down on its luck that decides that if it just gets a makeover, and dumps its fiance for the hot, young penguin chick that everyone wants to be seen with, things will turn out ok.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Wasn't one of the last few real Amigas a convergance device? I belive it was called the CD32, and was sold as a game/multimedia machine. Anyway, it's a market that makes sense, although certain companies (ahhm, Microsoft) are already positioned there.
Either Amiga wants to try to infiltrate the entire computer market en-masse,
Well, the general computer market has grown one hundred times over since the Amiga was sold. Most people using computers now days have never heard of "Amiga", and a good portion of those who have wouldn't even bother. (Same goes for standard Linux, by the way.)
If this thing is marketed towards the general computing market, they're dead even before they started.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
That's not necessarily bad. But what all this amounts to is that a division of Gateway is thinking about building a multimedia computer that uses some of the Linux kernel. The fact that it's called "Amiga" seems pretty incidental to me.
"Also, I certainly believe and hope that the Amiga people continue to build on the old Amiga foundation - strong technology. I see them as being commercial, but also as a market where people really care about doing the right thing technologically."
Gateway (the spotted cow people) bought Amiga a while back, and so in my mind, Amiga = Gateway - they are owned and managed by the same billionaire bean-counters. I worked for three years in Gateway's tech support (the filter through which passes all blunders made by the rest of the company) and I can assure you that the only thing they care about is the $. Gateway's stated reasons for buying Amiga were to increase their intellectual property portfolio (ie they wanted Amiga's patents). There were indications that Gateway was unaware of a the active Amiga community until after the purchase. I can remember checking daily to see if there were any new developments with Amiga for a couple of months after the acquisition and being disappointed when I saw nothing.
Keep in mind also that Gateway is one of those that won't offer Linux on their systems*, won't offer you a system without Windows, and won't honor the EULA. Do you think they will do nice things with Linux?
*OK, to be totally accurate, while they don't OFFER a Linux system, you CAN buy a system from Gateway with Linux on it. Be prepared to add at least $700 to the list price for the privilege of buying a custom-integrated solution.
Once you've read the page linked above you need to read this as well.
>QNX is a horrible operating system. I wouldn't
>use it to run a toaster, much less a desktop
>environment
You again, tlewis? Why are you on this anti-QNX crusade, anyway? For a brief moment, I was wondering whether you work for a QNX competitor, but then I remembered from our last encounter that you don't have any OS or embedded-system experience so that seems unlikely. I can only guess that you enjoy trolling.
As I pointed out last time, different platforms are intended for different environments, in terms of both the "lower environment" of what the hardware provides and the "upper environment" of what the applications/users require. Your phrasing "...much less a desktop environment..." shows your bias; like many people, you seem to consider the desktop to be the whole world. This is just not realistic.
>Message passing is for wussies
Speaking of what's "for wussies" how much real programming have you done? Application-level programming is "for wussies" as far as I'm concerned, and that's all you ever seem to have done.
Message passing is not "for wussies" at all. Look under the covers of any supposedly non-message-passing system - even a processor/memory bus - and what you'll see are...messages! It doesn't make any difference that the messages are processed by hardware rather than software. Now, given that it's all messages in reality, what's wrong with passing messages that represent higher-level semantic concepts than "get" and "put"? Answer: nothing. Message passing is, in short, an essential part of computing.
Is explicit message passing implemented in software a good basis for an OS? Yeah, it's OK, if one understands its strengths and weaknesses. Message passing is good for supporting heterogeneous systems, long latencies, and robust fault detection/recovery, compared to memory sharing. Message passing can also suck like a black hole wrt performance. Efficient message passing is essential, as is an overall architecture that keeps the number of messages and/or time blocked waiting for messages down. Many message-passing systems (e.g. Mach) have sucked because they had layer after layer of overly-complex interfaces creating more message traffic, and were insufficiently parallel within each subsystem to tolerate message latencies. But it _can_ be done right. Did QNX do it right? I don't know, but I've heard quite a few comments leading me to believe that maybe they did.
As an aside, I have worked on both hardware and software versions of distributed shared memory. The latencies etc. involved present some very hard problems which to the best of my knowledge have not yet been adequately solved. I'm inclined at this point to believe that - until we understand the solutions better - anything inherently distributed is better off with explicit message passing than with a shared-memory paradigm on top of a translation to the necessary message passing.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.