Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Redox OS 0.5 Released With New C Library Written In Rust

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Redox OS 0.5 Released With New C Library Written In Rust

    Phoronix: Redox OS 0.5 Released With New C Library Written In Rust

    It's been just over one year since the previous release of Redox OS while today this Rust-written operating system has finally been succeeded by Redox OS 0.5...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...S-0.5-Released

  • Grinch
    replied
    Originally posted by silmeth View Post
    Yeah, largely is a big overstatement, but they do use Rust for their new experimental high-performance networking stack
    Thanks for the info, so there is at least an experimental component being written in Rust.

    From my admittedly quick look at the source code tree, the current netstack is written in Go, as is the update system (amber), the rest (which is like 95% of the code) was C++. So calling it written 'mainly' in Rust has to be one of the greatest exaggerations I've ever seen.

    Leave a comment:


  • silmeth
    replied
    Originally posted by Grinch View Post
    Ehh, what ? Where exactly is the Rust code in Fuchsia ? I just looked at the project and it seems to be 95% C++, with some Dart and Go as well.
    Yeah, largely is a big overstatement, but they do use Rust for their new experimental high-performance networking stack. There was a talk about it. Not sure what (and if) they currently use Rust for besides this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grinch
    replied
    Originally posted by moltonel View Post
    you should look closely at Fushia, Google's replacement for a Linux-based Android, which is largely written in Rust.
    Ehh, what ? Where exactly is the Rust code in Fuchsia ? I just looked at the project and it seems to be 95% C++, with some Dart and Go as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • niner
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post

    OS X is built around a variation of the Mach Microkernel called Darwin, Blackberry OS was a microkernel, Google's Fucshia is a microkernel, L4 is a microkernel used in various places, and RedoxOS is a microkernel... It's not a problem with Microkernels it's a problem with GNU.
    Darwin is not the kernel, it's the most basic OS component of OS X containing a kernel.
    XNU, the kernel running in OS X and iOS started out with a Mach micro kernel, but in reality what they have, they call a "hybrid kernel". It's a mix between micro and monolithic kernel. In essence, whenever they ran into the issues mico kernels tend to have, they forwent the separation and pushed the code into the kernel. So it's hardly "micro" anymore. Same as Linux is not purely monolithic anymore either thanks to FUSE and user space drivers.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

    Mach and HURD are microkernels, and nobody figured out how to make those work really well.

    I am not an expert on this so I could be wrong, but as far as I know no widely used operating system today, proprietary or open, uses a microkernel. HURD was hamstrung by that design choice. (I know Debian GNU/HURD exists, but as far as I know it's an interesting toy and not used in production anywhere.)
    QNX uses a microkernel, and i can see how it'd be quite useful for a hard real-time OS such as that. I think it used to be moderately popular in it's RTOS sector, though I'm not sure if that's still the case now or if it's dying off.

    I definitely agree that it's yet to be proven at a large scale consumer level, where it needs to compete against monolithic or hybrid kernels in performance.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 03-25-2019, 10:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by DanL View Post

    I'd guess that most (if not all) people with experience of a variety of languages have languages they like more than others. If one person states they dislike one language, why would you conclude s/he has trouble learning new languages (unless you disagree with that preference and are trying to be an a-hole)?
    Some random poster's personal preference is of very little value. A language is just a tool. With some technical pros and cons, not social. If someone thinks both Scala and Rust are crap, I'm not exactly sure whether the poster is just another inexperienced noob or has a background in language design and good reasons for criticizing them. For instance, Scala was developed by a group of leading language scientists. Rust is also considered pretty advanced with state of the art features. Far beyond Ada or C.

    Besides, this is a Rust thread. Perfect for dismissing Rust..
    Last edited by caligula; 03-25-2019, 06:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

    Mach and HURD are microkernels, and nobody figured out how to make those work really well.

    I am not an expert on this so I could be wrong, but as far as I know no widely used operating system today, proprietary or open, uses a microkernel. HURD was hamstrung by that design choice. (I know Debian GNU/HURD exists, but as far as I know it's an interesting toy and not used in production anywhere.)
    OS X is built around a variation of the Mach Microkernel called Darwin, Blackberry OS was a microkernel, Google's Fucshia is a microkernel, L4 is a microkernel used in various places, and RedoxOS is a microkernel... It's not a problem with Microkernels it's a problem with GNU.

    Originally posted by doragasu
    About Redox OS, I do not think they plan to replace Linux with it, I think about it more like a proof of concept to demonstrate that Rust is a perfectly valid language for systems programming. Maybe something like Servo, the experimental browser from Mozilla completely written in Rust.
    It's a hobby project by a guy who wanted to make a rust based OS, however it's done more in the 3 years it's been developed than most of these hobby OSes have done in 20-30 years. It is extremely likely that this will take on a life of it's own. It may not replace Linux but don't be surprised if in another decade it's a serious entry in the OS Market, and that it's served as a launchpad for a full ecosystem of rust applications/DEs.

    Leave a comment:


  • nomadewolf
    replied
    I really like this OS.
    Hopefully we get to toy with it in production soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

    When the Mozilla foundation has no resources to support the Alsa audio in Firefox, it is stupid to expect much from their programming language and OS.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
    AND OS, really? The lead developer of Redox OS works for System76, so how is this a Mozila project then?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X