Perhaps you should be chastised for failing to read this thread?
The source code to Java (ALL the source code) has been available under the SCSL for nearly a decade. The JRL license is new, but it's used on the development branch of Java.
And people wonder why I blow a gasket about these things?
Well, for one thing, it is slower than native code.
Patently false. It has been false for years now. Ever since Chris Rijk published his earth shattering benchmarks. (More recent benchmarks here.)
It's now down to the skill of the programmer. A good programmer will write speedy code, and a bad programmer will write garbage. Who'da'thunk?
For another, its garbage collection has a tendency to result in really bad performance stalls
When was the last time you used Java? 1.1? The modern hotspot JVM uses a generational collector which should NEVER stall during runtime unless it begins running into memory pressure. Go try this game and tell us how many stalls you see. If you think that's too "simple", try this one.
For another, its portability has been hampered by not fully supporting interesting OS features, which means that there are all these OS-specific extensions to add things like audio support,
Is there something wrong with the javax.sound packages? I'm REALLY thinking that you haven't tried Java since 1.1.
They don't integrate well with other apps, don't do a good job of supporting OS services, etc.
Finally, Java makes it hard to add debug functionality into your code without a performance hit.
That's just a weak argument. Debugging info can really screw up a codebase and should be removed after debugging. But if you're wedded to the idea, get one of the three billion preprocessors that are available.
The bottom line is that pretty much any compiled language has great advantages over Java.
The bottom line is that you haven't used Java since the days of 1.1, but you feel that you're fully qualified to make statements about a platform you know nothing about. Whether you intend to or not, you are trolling, sir. So I would ask you to stop spreading FUD by not commenting on Java until you are again familiar with the platform.
Apparently, the justification for this is coming from Sega VP, Scott Steinberg. He believes that the Wii will launch at under $200 due to its far simpler hardware in comparison to the competition.
Nintendo has always had a profit on all the consoles they've sold.
I don't see why Nintendo couldn't sell at $200 and still make profit. My understanding is that the core hardware isn't that much different from the Gamecube. Sure, they might lose short term profits that they could have had, but it would be worth it if they could pull a Sony on Sony themselves!
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. If Sun makes it OSI compliant, it would be a boon for the Java industry. The problem is that they can't really have it both ways. They can't not allow forking while simultaneously meeting the OSI's requirements. It's one or the other. I'm sure Schwartz is looking for a loophole, but he'll have a hard time finding it.
IMHO, it would help a lot more if Sun were to simply make Java binaries easier to distribute. They keep removing licensing restrictions, but they never actually grant permission for Operating Systems to include their binaries. (I actually spoke with a Java Product Manager on the issue to confirm that was a problem.)
Thankfully, that is finally changing. If the recent news is correct, Sun may soon be allowing Java to be carried by any distro that wishes to do so. Combined with the annoucement of FreeBSD binaries, things are starting to look up, up, up.:-)
Every story. EVERY FUCKING STORY. The links are posted by someone EVERY FUCKING STORY. Does anyone listen? NO! They're too busy WITH THEIR HEADS STUCK UP THEIR ASSES to pay any attention!
So you'll have to excuse me IF I'M A LITTLE PISSED OFF AT THE MOMENT.
Every, (and I do mean every) story on Java here on Slashdot has contained one of those two links. Most of them contain BOTH. Why? Because the trolls come out in force. The fact that you didn't take the time to look into the matter (I believe I suggested Googling for it) is disappointing and disheartening.:-(
Sun doesn't care about some minor fork of Java that 20 people use that eventually dies
But they DO care about IBM or Microsoft creating a VM that advertises compatbility, but actually pulls the bait-and-switch routine. Remember, Microsoft already tried to pull that routine with the NON-OSS version of Java. It was the license that stopped them. This time, you can be sure that they would stay precisely inside the letter of the law. No Java trademarking, but no compatability testing either. Companies will start to rely on it for its Windows performance, and then Microsoft will start introducing subtle differences. Before you know it, users will blame Sun for being incompatible.
"After resisting for years, Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz at JavaOne this morning said that he will release the source code for Java.
BZZT! WRONG! Java source code has been available for YEARS! (And no, I'm not going to bother linking. If you don't already know where to find the SCSL and JRL licensed code by now, you need to pull your head out of your butt and Google it.)
This article is nothing but a blurb that suggests that Sun is looking at Open Sourcing Java. (What the Slashdot pundits have been screaming for, for years now.) Unfortunately, one of OSI's core requirements is forking. So Java will never be able to make the pundits happy.:-/
First, anyone planning on a high-definition in-flight entertainment system over Bluetooth would have to be nucking futs.
1. Why would it have to be hi-def? We're talking about seat-back TV Screens. Transmitted anything higher than 640x480 stereo is a waste of bandwidth.
2. Assuming they can get FAA approval, they could use higher bandwidth devices like WIFI. Perhaps even on normally disallowed channels. (Since the plane won't be interfering with nearby radio devices.)
If we were talking about one optic fibre, that would be one thing, but aviation protocols seem to be point to point, not busses, so you need one physical or virtual connection for EVERY possible combination of end-points.
That's a fair point. However, busses are allowed under the ARINC standards. I imagine they're still highly redundant, though.
Except that he gave a number for a 747. We can presume that the amount of wiring has been significantly reduced by the use of multiplexed optical-fibre in the 777.
Such wireless links could be susceptible to electromagnetic interference or even jamming, Mellor suggests. And it could be more difficult to build in back-up wireless connections, he says. "If you jam one link you would jam both," he warns.
That's also my concern. A high powered transmitter is a lot easier to attack a plane with than a shoulder mounted rocket. (Which simply doesn't have the same range as a high powered transmitter.) A truck with a few generators in series would make for an excellent jamming platform.
There's also the concern of an onboard terrorist using implementation flaws to hack the airplane. The crew would have a deuce of a time trying to understand why they're locked out of their controls.
Some planes, such as the Boeing 777 even use optical fibres, which can carry multiple signals through a single cable.
IMNO, this makes a lot more sense. Optical busses between the necessary components are fast, lightweight, and easy to install. I can't see wireless saving more than a few kilograms over fibre connections.
That being said, in-flight entertainment systems might save weight if they weren't wired up. Running fibre for such systems results in a lot of unnecessary wiring and weight. Since the entertainment system is effectively a low-security system, airplane makers can feel free to use these linkages as long as the control systems remain wired.
She also admits that stringent aviation regulations may mean the technology first appears in cars rather than planes.
That makes even less sense. AFAIK, the horrid nests of wires that previously ran all of a car's electronics have been replaced by more standardized busses. The remaining wiring merely hooks a cars features into the power system. Unless I missed something, Bluetooth can not wirelessly provide power to accessories. Which means that they can't replace the wiring in cars anyway.
Hopefully we'll see this technology help with UAVs and other super-light aircraft. But I have no desire to fly on a plane that has its key systems hooked up through a technology that can be potentially interfered with by the cellphones the passengers are carrying.
Yes, actually. It seems that most modern CPUs have moved to a RISC core, but get around the issues of compiler support by using microcode to translate CISC instructions into something more palatable for superscalar, out-of-order, pipelined architectures.
Granted, he didn't predict we'd end up with such a weird hybrid of CISC and RISC, but then again, he's not exactly Kreskin.
Remember microkernel-loving theorists out there, we're talking about Minix, something quite alot _older_ than Linux.
Pardon me? Sir? Sir? You seem to have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Minix 1 & 2 codebases are indeed older than Linux. And they could have *been* Linux, except that Tanenbaum was focused on teaching. As a result, he rejected the requests to add features, thus leading to the development of Linux.
However, he has apparently decided that it's time to start a microkernel project to prove the concept in the modern world. As such, he's written a brand new codebase that's focused on the Microkernel architecture rather than producing something that is easily studied by students. As such, the Minix3 codebase is only 8 months old.
If you'd taken the 5 minutes necessary to RTFA, you'd know that. In the future, please take the time to read before expounding on your obvious disgust with a concept you are not paying any attention to.
Threading is bad. Don't use it. When you have to use code that uses it, refactor the code to use processes or a state machine. It can be done.
I'm sure that it *can* be done. But that doesn't help us get the MASSIVE chunk of UNIX software built for MINIX. For example, I'm trying to build FOX for a GUI since I can't get GTK+ built. It won't build without pthreads.
If Minix wants to remain compatible, it should implement green threads at a minimum. If it wasn't ever intended to be compatible, then it shouldn't have implemented the UNIX/POSIX design. Mr. Tanenbaum could have looked into a brand-new kernel design that was better suited to microkernel design than Unix. But he didn't. So, pthreads are a requirement.
Unless Minix finds an easy way to port Linux drivers, it won't go further on the desktop than BSD.
I'm thinking that's a ways down the road. If Minix could at least be viable for embedding into smaller, pre-configured devices, it could garner a lot more support in the device-driver arena.
And it won't even get as far as BSD unless it has a BSD-like license.
Sorry? Minix3 is distributed under the BSD license.
And v3.12 (I think, I'm going from memory here) will finally support the X windowing system
That's odd. I could have sworn that I was just using an X-Terminal on it a few minutes ago.
Oh wait. I was using an X-Terminal. How in the world did that happen? </mock-sarcasm>
To be fair, getting X-Windows running is a recent development. On the other hand, the entire Minix3 codebase is a recent development. (Only a half-year old.) They're moving at a pretty good clip for a brand-new OS.:-)
*Minix. This is still an educational kernel. A teaching tool. It remains unsuitable for "real world" use.
Actually, it's a start of a full-up Microkernel operating system. This isn't your grand-pappy's Minix, it's a brand new code base under the BSD license, intended to be developed out into a complete system. It's still taking baby-steps at the moment, but it's coming along quite nicely.
* NT. This is NOT a microkernel!
NT is a hybrid. It has Microkernel facilities that are constantly being used for something different in each version. Early versions of NT were apparently full Microkernels, but this was changed for performance.
* QNX Neutrino. This is the most successful microkernel ever. It deserves all the praise it gets. Yet it is still a niche product.
I would hardly call QNX a "niche" product. Running on everything from your car engine to Kiosk PCs (yes, that stupid iOpener ran it too), it's an extremely powerful and versatile operating system. Its Microkernel architecture even gives it the ability to be heavily customized for the needs of the application. Don't need networking? So don't run the server! Need a GUI? Just add the Graphics server to the startup.
Microkernels haven't failed. However, you may notice that nearly all the popular Operating Systems we use today were all developed back in the late 80's and early 90's. The real problem is that there hasn't been a need to develop new OSes until now. Now that Security and Stability are more difficult pressing issues than performance, we can go back to the drawing board and start designing new OSes to meet our needs for the next decade and a half.
You-betcha. I honestly think Mr. Tanenbaum is wasting his time in replying to Slashdot. If the last article proved anything, it's that the majority of responders were stuck on the whole "Linus 'won' this over a decade ago, so STFU!" (No one really 'won' the argument, but that's beside the point.)
There were a couple of good replies in there, but they all got drowned out in the noise. Soooo, I think it's a better idea to focus on how Minix might be made a viable OS rather than arguing the same nonsense all over again. As several of the posters here have already proven, they're not reading Tanenbaum's arguments anyway. So why should we expect this time be any different than the last?
Since I know that this story is going to turn into flame-fest central, I'm going to try to head things off by interjecting an intelligent conversion about some issues that are on my mind at the moment.
First and foremost, does anyone have a torrent of Minix3? Tanenbaum is a bit worried about getting slashdotted. If you've got one seeded, please share.
Now with that out of the way. I don't know if anyone else has tried it yet, but Minix3 is kind of neat. It's a complete OS that implements the Microkernel concepts that he's been expounding on for years now. The upsides are that it supports POSIX standards (mostly), can run X-Windows, and is a useful development platform. Everything is very open, and still simple enough to trudge through without getting confused by the myriads of "gotchas" most OS code-bases contain. Unfortunately, it's still a long way from a usable OS.
The biggest issue is that the system is lacking proper memory management. It currently uses static data segments which have to be predefined before the program is run. If the program goes over its data segment, it will start failing on mallocs. The result is that you often have to massively increase the data segment just to handle the peak usage. Right now I have BASH running with a segment size of about 80 megs just so I can run configure scripts. That means that every instance of BASH is taking up that much memory! There's apparently a Virtual Memory system in progress to help solve this issue, so this is (thankfully) a temporary problem.
The other big issue is a lack of threading support. I'm trying to compile GNU PThreads to cover over this deficiency, but it's been a slow process. (It keeps failing on the mctx stack configuration. I wish I understood what that was so I wouldn't have to blindly try different settings.)
On the other hand, the usermode servers do work as advertised. For example, the network stack occasionally crashes under VMWare. (I'm guessing it's the same memory problems I mentioned earlier.) Simply killing and restarting dhcpd actually does get the system back up and running. It's kind of neat, even though it does take some getting used to.
All in all, I think it's a really cool project that could go places. The key thing is that it needs attention from programmers with both the desire and time to help. Tossing lame criticisms won't help the project reach that goal. So if you're looking to help out a cool operating system that's focused on stability, security, and ease of development, come check out Minix for a bit. The worst that could happen is that you'll decide that it isn't worth investing the time and energy. And who knows? With some work, Minix might turn out to be a good alternative to QNX.:-)
Because China is trying very hard to become an economic super-power. Copying technology from other nations won't get them that, because they'll always be playing second fiddle. Instead, they want to produce technology that exceeds the rest of the world so that they can take the place of the United States and Europe as the source for all new technology.
If they charge for it, someone will put it up for "free" within one day.
Star Wreck was "free" from day 1. Yet I tried very hard (and very unsuccessfully) to get a DVD. If it weren't for their decision that it was legally too risky to sell DVDs to the US market, they would be ~$20 richer today, and I would have a DVD in my possession.
Actually, I think they licensed the usage. Pets.com may have been a dead company, but they were still selling licenses for that stupid dog for YEARS beyond their death. Methinks they should have gone into advertising instead of pet food.
1. The exchange rate. £410 is equivalent to what we pay in the US, but thanks to the exchange rate that gets jacked up by 27%.
2. VAT. Up to 20% in taxes really sucks. Sales tax isn't reflected in US prices, but it's usually about 5-7% over the store price. Thus a $399 machine will go out the door for as much as $426.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should be chastised for failing to read this thread?
The source code to Java (ALL the source code) has been available under the SCSL for nearly a decade. The JRL license is new, but it's used on the development branch of Java.
And people wonder why I blow a gasket about these things?
Well, for one thing, it is slower than native code.
Patently false. It has been false for years now. Ever since Chris Rijk published his earth shattering benchmarks. (More recent benchmarks here.)
It's now down to the skill of the programmer. A good programmer will write speedy code, and a bad programmer will write garbage. Who'da'thunk?
For another, its garbage collection has a tendency to result in really bad performance stalls
When was the last time you used Java? 1.1? The modern hotspot JVM uses a generational collector which should NEVER stall during runtime unless it begins running into memory pressure. Go try this game and tell us how many stalls you see. If you think that's too "simple", try this one.
For another, its portability has been hampered by not fully supporting interesting OS features, which means that there are all these OS-specific extensions to add things like audio support,
Is there something wrong with the javax.sound packages? I'm REALLY thinking that you haven't tried Java since 1.1.
They don't integrate well with other apps, don't do a good job of supporting OS services, etc.
Psst!
Finally, Java makes it hard to add debug functionality into your code without a performance hit.
That's just a weak argument. Debugging info can really screw up a codebase and should be removed after debugging. But if you're wedded to the idea, get one of the three billion preprocessors that are available.
The bottom line is that pretty much any compiled language has great advantages over Java.
The bottom line is that you haven't used Java since the days of 1.1, but you feel that you're fully qualified to make statements about a platform you know nothing about. Whether you intend to or not, you are trolling, sir. So I would ask you to stop spreading FUD by not commenting on Java until you are again familiar with the platform.
Apparently, the justification for this is coming from Sega VP, Scott Steinberg. He believes that the Wii will launch at under $200 due to its far simpler hardware in comparison to the competition.
Nintendo has always had a profit on all the consoles they've sold.
I don't see why Nintendo couldn't sell at $200 and still make profit. My understanding is that the core hardware isn't that much different from the Gamecube. Sure, they might lose short term profits that they could have had, but it would be worth it if they could pull a Sony on Sony themselves!
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. If Sun makes it OSI compliant, it would be a boon for the Java industry. The problem is that they can't really have it both ways. They can't not allow forking while simultaneously meeting the OSI's requirements. It's one or the other. I'm sure Schwartz is looking for a loophole, but he'll have a hard time finding it.
:-)
IMHO, it would help a lot more if Sun were to simply make Java binaries easier to distribute. They keep removing licensing restrictions, but they never actually grant permission for Operating Systems to include their binaries. (I actually spoke with a Java Product Manager on the issue to confirm that was a problem.)
Thankfully, that is finally changing. If the recent news is correct, Sun may soon be allowing Java to be carried by any distro that wishes to do so. Combined with the annoucement of FreeBSD binaries, things are starting to look up, up, up.
You want some links? Huh punk?
1 1/06/15562152 758&cid=119639105 508&cid=153257102 0257= 139146589 147&cid=125159519 147&cid=125014835 508&cid=15309562
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/31/12
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166862&cid
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18
Every story. EVERY FUCKING STORY. The links are posted by someone EVERY FUCKING STORY. Does anyone listen? NO! They're too busy WITH THEIR HEADS STUCK UP THEIR ASSES to pay any attention!
So you'll have to excuse me IF I'M A LITTLE PISSED OFF AT THE MOMENT.
what the "pundits" have been calling for is the source code to the virtual machine and the compiler
:-(
WindBourne! I'm shocked to hear such garbage from you!
Current "Stable" JVM - <= 1.5 (SCSL)
"Unstable" JVM Branch - 1.6 (JRL)
Every, (and I do mean every) story on Java here on Slashdot has contained one of those two links. Most of them contain BOTH. Why? Because the trolls come out in force. The fact that you didn't take the time to look into the matter (I believe I suggested Googling for it) is disappointing and disheartening.
Sun doesn't care about some minor fork of Java that 20 people use that eventually dies
But they DO care about IBM or Microsoft creating a VM that advertises compatbility, but actually pulls the bait-and-switch routine. Remember, Microsoft already tried to pull that routine with the NON-OSS version of Java. It was the license that stopped them. This time, you can be sure that they would stay precisely inside the letter of the law. No Java trademarking, but no compatability testing either. Companies will start to rely on it for its Windows performance, and then Microsoft will start introducing subtle differences. Before you know it, users will blame Sun for being incompatible.
"After resisting for years, Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz at JavaOne this morning said that he will release the source code for Java.
:-/
BZZT! WRONG! Java source code has been available for YEARS! (And no, I'm not going to bother linking. If you don't already know where to find the SCSL and JRL licensed code by now, you need to pull your head out of your butt and Google it.)
This article is nothing but a blurb that suggests that Sun is looking at Open Sourcing Java. (What the Slashdot pundits have been screaming for, for years now.) Unfortunately, one of OSI's core requirements is forking. So Java will never be able to make the pundits happy.
First, anyone planning on a high-definition in-flight entertainment system over Bluetooth would have to be nucking futs.
1. Why would it have to be hi-def? We're talking about seat-back TV Screens. Transmitted anything higher than 640x480 stereo is a waste of bandwidth.
2. Assuming they can get FAA approval, they could use higher bandwidth devices like WIFI. Perhaps even on normally disallowed channels. (Since the plane won't be interfering with nearby radio devices.)
If we were talking about one optic fibre, that would be one thing, but aviation protocols seem to be point to point, not busses, so you need one physical or virtual connection for EVERY possible combination of end-points.
That's a fair point. However, busses are allowed under the ARINC standards. I imagine they're still highly redundant, though.
Except that he gave a number for a 747. We can presume that the amount of wiring has been significantly reduced by the use of multiplexed optical-fibre in the 777.
Such wireless links could be susceptible to electromagnetic interference or even jamming, Mellor suggests. And it could be more difficult to build in back-up wireless connections, he says. "If you jam one link you would jam both," he warns.
That's also my concern. A high powered transmitter is a lot easier to attack a plane with than a shoulder mounted rocket. (Which simply doesn't have the same range as a high powered transmitter.) A truck with a few generators in series would make for an excellent jamming platform.
There's also the concern of an onboard terrorist using implementation flaws to hack the airplane. The crew would have a deuce of a time trying to understand why they're locked out of their controls.
Some planes, such as the Boeing 777 even use optical fibres, which can carry multiple signals through a single cable.
IMNO, this makes a lot more sense. Optical busses between the necessary components are fast, lightweight, and easy to install. I can't see wireless saving more than a few kilograms over fibre connections.
That being said, in-flight entertainment systems might save weight if they weren't wired up. Running fibre for such systems results in a lot of unnecessary wiring and weight. Since the entertainment system is effectively a low-security system, airplane makers can feel free to use these linkages as long as the control systems remain wired.
She also admits that stringent aviation regulations may mean the technology first appears in cars rather than planes.
That makes even less sense. AFAIK, the horrid nests of wires that previously ran all of a car's electronics have been replaced by more standardized busses. The remaining wiring merely hooks a cars features into the power system. Unless I missed something, Bluetooth can not wirelessly provide power to accessories. Which means that they can't replace the wiring in cars anyway.
Hopefully we'll see this technology help with UAVs and other super-light aircraft. But I have no desire to fly on a plane that has its key systems hooked up through a technology that can be potentially interfered with by the cellphones the passengers are carrying.
Yes, actually. It seems that most modern CPUs have moved to a RISC core, but get around the issues of compiler support by using microcode to translate CISC instructions into something more palatable for superscalar, out-of-order, pipelined architectures.
Granted, he didn't predict we'd end up with such a weird hybrid of CISC and RISC, but then again, he's not exactly Kreskin.
Remember microkernel-loving theorists out there, we're talking about Minix, something quite alot _older_ than Linux.
Pardon me? Sir? Sir? You seem to have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Minix 1 & 2 codebases are indeed older than Linux. And they could have *been* Linux, except that Tanenbaum was focused on teaching. As a result, he rejected the requests to add features, thus leading to the development of Linux.
However, he has apparently decided that it's time to start a microkernel project to prove the concept in the modern world. As such, he's written a brand new codebase that's focused on the Microkernel architecture rather than producing something that is easily studied by students. As such, the Minix3 codebase is only 8 months old.
If you'd taken the 5 minutes necessary to RTFA, you'd know that. In the future, please take the time to read before expounding on your obvious disgust with a concept you are not paying any attention to.
Thank you, and please have a nice day.
Threading is bad. Don't use it. When you have to use code that uses it, refactor the code to use processes or a state machine. It can be done.
I'm sure that it *can* be done. But that doesn't help us get the MASSIVE chunk of UNIX software built for MINIX. For example, I'm trying to build FOX for a GUI since I can't get GTK+ built. It won't build without pthreads.
If Minix wants to remain compatible, it should implement green threads at a minimum. If it wasn't ever intended to be compatible, then it shouldn't have implemented the UNIX/POSIX design. Mr. Tanenbaum could have looked into a brand-new kernel design that was better suited to microkernel design than Unix. But he didn't. So, pthreads are a requirement.
Unless Minix finds an easy way to port Linux drivers, it won't go further on the desktop than BSD.
:-)
I'm thinking that's a ways down the road. If Minix could at least be viable for embedding into smaller, pre-configured devices, it could garner a lot more support in the device-driver arena.
And it won't even get as far as BSD unless it has a BSD-like license.
Sorry? Minix3 is distributed under the BSD license.
Any word on a Xen compatibility?
Apparently it's up and running.
And v3.12 (I think, I'm going from memory here) will finally support the X windowing system
:-)
That's odd. I could have sworn that I was just using an X-Terminal on it a few minutes ago.
Oh wait. I was using an X-Terminal. How in the world did that happen? </mock-sarcasm>
To be fair, getting X-Windows running is a recent development. On the other hand, the entire Minix3 codebase is a recent development. (Only a half-year old.) They're moving at a pretty good clip for a brand-new OS.
Forgetting something?
*Minix. This is still an educational kernel. A teaching tool. It remains unsuitable for "real world" use.
Actually, it's a start of a full-up Microkernel operating system. This isn't your grand-pappy's Minix, it's a brand new code base under the BSD license, intended to be developed out into a complete system. It's still taking baby-steps at the moment, but it's coming along quite nicely.
* NT. This is NOT a microkernel!
NT is a hybrid. It has Microkernel facilities that are constantly being used for something different in each version. Early versions of NT were apparently full Microkernels, but this was changed for performance.
* QNX Neutrino. This is the most successful microkernel ever. It deserves all the praise it gets. Yet it is still a niche product.
I would hardly call QNX a "niche" product. Running on everything from your car engine to Kiosk PCs (yes, that stupid iOpener ran it too), it's an extremely powerful and versatile operating system. Its Microkernel architecture even gives it the ability to be heavily customized for the needs of the application. Don't need networking? So don't run the server! Need a GUI? Just add the Graphics server to the startup.
Microkernels haven't failed. However, you may notice that nearly all the popular Operating Systems we use today were all developed back in the late 80's and early 90's. The real problem is that there hasn't been a need to develop new OSes until now. Now that Security and Stability are more difficult pressing issues than performance, we can go back to the drawing board and start designing new OSes to meet our needs for the next decade and a half.
You-betcha. I honestly think Mr. Tanenbaum is wasting his time in replying to Slashdot. If the last article proved anything, it's that the majority of responders were stuck on the whole "Linus 'won' this over a decade ago, so STFU!" (No one really 'won' the argument, but that's beside the point.)
There were a couple of good replies in there, but they all got drowned out in the noise. Soooo, I think it's a better idea to focus on how Minix might be made a viable OS rather than arguing the same nonsense all over again. As several of the posters here have already proven, they're not reading Tanenbaum's arguments anyway. So why should we expect this time be any different than the last?
Since I know that this story is going to turn into flame-fest central, I'm going to try to head things off by interjecting an intelligent conversion about some issues that are on my mind at the moment.
:-)
First and foremost, does anyone have a torrent of Minix3? Tanenbaum is a bit worried about getting slashdotted. If you've got one seeded, please share.
Now with that out of the way. I don't know if anyone else has tried it yet, but Minix3 is kind of neat. It's a complete OS that implements the Microkernel concepts that he's been expounding on for years now. The upsides are that it supports POSIX standards (mostly), can run X-Windows, and is a useful development platform. Everything is very open, and still simple enough to trudge through without getting confused by the myriads of "gotchas" most OS code-bases contain. Unfortunately, it's still a long way from a usable OS.
The biggest issue is that the system is lacking proper memory management. It currently uses static data segments which have to be predefined before the program is run. If the program goes over its data segment, it will start failing on mallocs. The result is that you often have to massively increase the data segment just to handle the peak usage. Right now I have BASH running with a segment size of about 80 megs just so I can run configure scripts. That means that every instance of BASH is taking up that much memory! There's apparently a Virtual Memory system in progress to help solve this issue, so this is (thankfully) a temporary problem.
The other big issue is a lack of threading support. I'm trying to compile GNU PThreads to cover over this deficiency, but it's been a slow process. (It keeps failing on the mctx stack configuration. I wish I understood what that was so I wouldn't have to blindly try different settings.)
On the other hand, the usermode servers do work as advertised. For example, the network stack occasionally crashes under VMWare. (I'm guessing it's the same memory problems I mentioned earlier.) Simply killing and restarting dhcpd actually does get the system back up and running. It's kind of neat, even though it does take some getting used to.
All in all, I think it's a really cool project that could go places. The key thing is that it needs attention from programmers with both the desire and time to help. Tossing lame criticisms won't help the project reach that goal. So if you're looking to help out a cool operating system that's focused on stability, security, and ease of development, come check out Minix for a bit. The worst that could happen is that you'll decide that it isn't worth investing the time and energy. And who knows? With some work, Minix might turn out to be a good alternative to QNX.
Because China is trying very hard to become an economic super-power. Copying technology from other nations won't get them that, because they'll always be playing second fiddle. Instead, they want to produce technology that exceeds the rest of the world so that they can take the place of the United States and Europe as the source for all new technology.
If they charge for it, someone will put it up for "free" within one day.
Star Wreck was "free" from day 1. Yet I tried very hard (and very unsuccessfully) to get a DVD. If it weren't for their decision that it was legally too risky to sell DVDs to the US market, they would be ~$20 richer today, and I would have a DVD in my possession.
Being able to download a movie isn't everything.
Circumnavigation. Yeash.
Actually, I think they licensed the usage. Pets.com may have been a dead company, but they were still selling licenses for that stupid dog for YEARS beyond their death. Methinks they should have gone into advertising instead of pet food.
It's caused by two effects:
1. The exchange rate. £410 is equivalent to what we pay in the US, but thanks to the exchange rate that gets jacked up by 27%.
2. VAT. Up to 20% in taxes really sucks. Sales tax isn't reflected in US prices, but it's usually about 5-7% over the store price. Thus a $399 machine will go out the door for as much as $426.
On the other hand, if you're trying to impress a guest or a boss, you don't bring them to Taco Bell, you bring them to a fancy restaurant.
Unless you're Sylvester Stallone, that is....