Originally posted by ninez
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Minix 3.2 Released, Uses LLVM/Clang, SMP, ELF
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostNobody, because I'm not saying microkernel will trash my data. It's obvious bugs happen everywhere. If there's a bug in the file system microkernel won't help you. Thus, I don't care if I'll have to restart my box which runs sometimes hundreds times faster or just restart my file system while in both cases my data will be lost.
Personally, I don't care. But there are valid claims being made, you can't argue with that. Also, some people really need a 99.99999% crash-free guarantee. Microkernels are for them. Me, I don't care. I prefer performance. The occasional crash (happens maybe 5 times a year, usually the GPU driver fucks up) is acceptable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostIgnoring his envy regarding Linux and reality that has already proven Linux model is better... I doubt.
So my point here, is that neither model is actually superior over the other. In reality, they both have strengths and weaknesses that depending on the usage/application one might have an advantage over the other.
Originally posted by kraftman View PostNobody, because I'm not saying microkernel will trash my data. It's obvious bugs happen everywhere. If there's a bug in the file system microkernel won't help you. Thus, I don't care if I'll have to restart my box which runs sometimes hundreds times faster or just restart my file system while in both cases my data will be lost.
You also state (actually assume) that your system is 'hundreds of times faster' than a microkernel ~ which isn't really true... that is why i pointed out the Blackberry PlayBook, which i can easily compare to iOS and android devices, and i can tell you right now ~ it wasn't 'hundreds of times slower' than iOS/Android ~ in fact, it didn't seem slower to me, at all. It was very much comparable.
anyway, like i said, you could read up on this stuff, As it would probably make more sense to do that ~ over making nonsensical uninformed statements about technology, that you don't really know very much about.Last edited by ninez; 02 March 2012, 09:40 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ninez View PostIdeally, the file-system restarts after it crashes ~ without any significant impact on the rest of the system. ie: it doesn't crash. The whole idea of a Microkernel/Self-healing OS is that all of it's components are isolated from each other and use IPC to communicate. So if a driver / file-system / *insert component here* happens to crash - it won't take down the whole operating system. ie: it is self-healing.
If you're interested in the subject, rather than asking in the Phoronix forums - just search around the web && watch a video or two on youtube. there are lots of videos, whitepapers/research papers, wiki's, etc.
But here are a couple quick links...Tannanbaum, discussing Minix3;
By Andrew TanenbaumMINIX started in 1987 and led to several offshoots, the best known being Linux. MINIX 3 is the third major version of MINIX and is now foc...
and
QNX is another Self-healing/Microkernel/OS that is used in various industries.
and..
I am pretty sure that QNX is in much wider use than Minix (probably ever will be), and has been for years (dating back to the late 80s). It is used for many industrial applications. Also, (not that i am a huge fan of Blackberry). but as of 2012, all of Blackberries new smartphones will be using QNX, and currently, the blackberry Playbook does use QNX ---> actually let me rephrase that, they are using a modified version of QNX called BBX (BackBerry + QNX).
cheerzLast edited by popper; 03 March 2012, 12:49 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by popper View Postyou could have at least told them were to get the original last free for ever to end users non commercial QNX RTP 621 developer ISO releases (rather than the newer but less featured newer updates for blackberry use etc, does that even have the photon GUI as standard) although it seems its harder to find today as the ftp sites are deleting their "non commercial" qnx directories today it seems ftp://85.143.48.249/pub/os/qnx/ qnxpub621.ISO if readers want to try out a real time micro kernel as used in deep space missions so if you want it for trying later get it now is my advice.
as far as QNX having less features than previous versions ~ do you have any facts / info to back up that claim. I tend to think QNX of today (not specifically BBX), would be a little richer than a version from 8years ago... Generally, i tend to see QNX used much how Linux is being used these days, embedded systems (of many different shapes/sizes/forms/fuctions). As an example; (right from their website)
Who uses QNX?
Customers rely on QNX to help build products that enhance their brand characteristics – innovative, high-quality, dependable. Global leaders like Cisco, Delphi, General Electric, Siemens, and Thales have discovered QNX Software Systems gives them the only software platform upon which to build reliable, scalable, and high-performance applications for markets such as telecommunications, automotive, medical instrumentation, automation, security, and more.Last edited by ninez; 03 March 2012, 01:00 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ninez View PostYou assume, that i knew where to get the last non-commercial / developers ISO (that is from 2004!). Obviously, i'm not keeping track of stuff like that (as it's sort of a waste of my time). But that's cool that you knew where to find it & you posted it. nice find
as far as QNX having less features than previous versions ~ do you have any facts / info to back up that claim. I tend to think QNX of today (not specifically BBX), would be a little richer than a version from 8years ago... Generally, i tend to see QNX used much how Linux is being used these days, embedded systems (of many different shapes/sizes/forms/fuctions). As an example; (right from their website)
cheerz
i didn't find it as such (dan told me way back in the closed groups) and i wasn't keeping track, it and several older RTP developer URLs were in my browser bookmarks so i thought people might like to actually try it to know its NOT Slow as they assume, far from it... one dayMichael might even bother to bench it now he has a direct ftp that still carries it, even if that version is older against minix/linux etc given its one of a very few that is actually officially UNIX certified unlike some here
as far as QNX having less features than previous versions ~ do you have any facts / info to back up that claimLast edited by popper; 03 March 2012, 02:02 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ninez View PostWell, that is a bit silly and an illogical argument. One could just as easily say a buggy driver in Linux will take down the whole system, and the monolithic (linux) kernel won't help you, either. ~ but in this situation a Microkernel *would* still keep working. And so what, there is a bug in the file-system, it still doesn't take down your whole system && when the bug gets fixed and it's no longer a problem...I don't see your issue here, the same could be said of Linux.
With computing, the OS itself is not the goal. A running kernel is not the goal. Nerds may get hardons over technology like that, but at the end of the day the only reason that business and consumers run computer operating systems is to support some specific set of applications that operate on some specific data. When that data is lost -- or corrupted, or stolen, or what have you -- there is no longer any value in the OS. The OS is an implementation detail, a stepping stone, a way of achieving the real goal. It doesn't matter if Minix can recover from a crash that destroys the utility of having an OS in the first place, but Linux's and modern Windows' relative stability and the fact that they oh so very rarely actually crash or corrupt data is very valuable. The only argument then that Minix has going for it is that the separation of servers means that there's less overall code that directly affects the filesystem server, and hence less chance of crashing in the first place. With Linux, a bug in your GPU driver could corrupt memory used by the filesystem driver leading to corruption of the filesystem, but this can't (easily) happen on Minix (and maybe Windows and OSX/Darwin too; they're both hybrid microkernels, but I don't know specifically which parts are fully separated and which aren't).
This is similar to the problems with how modern Linux desktops are significantly less secure than Windows 7 and OS X (and even more so compared to Windows 8 and the next OS X release). Everybody and their brother in the Linux world keeps prattling on about the separation between root and users, but in the end, nobody who actually uses computers gives a crap about that. It does not matter in the slightest if root gets compromised or not on my single-user desktop if my user account is already compromised. Everything of actual value to me as a person is stored in my user account; my data files, my personal information, all of that is owned by me and my user, not root. Linux security is still all about entering the root password or using sudo for privileged operations while still running non-sandboxed browsers, non-sandboxed PDF/Office/Image/Email applications, and trusting that all software is pure because all software must have come from the surely thoroughly reviewed central repository. Windows makes sandboxing processes much easier with much better controls (Linux is catching up here), Windows browsers led the pack in sandboxing and Microsoft has sandboxed other apps, and both Microsoft and Apple have moved to app store models that have security by just not allowing apps to do bad things via strict sandboxing mechanisms so that even a malicious software distribution can't do significant harm, rather than Linux's security by trusting tens of thousands of random hobbyist package maintainers and random hobbyist upstream developers and random hobbyist software archive sysadmins to all be competent and honest. Minix fails here too, as far as I know; all traditional UNIX-like OSes do. SELinux and the like tries to address things and do a decent-ish job of it on the server, but the complex needs of desktop software has trouble fitting into the static predefined security attributes that SELinux tries to use (compared to the user-controllable flexible process-separated models that are shown to work on real desktop OSes).
Comment
-
Originally posted by elanthis View PostYou're not following. If your filesystem crashes, and your data is lost, the OS no longer matters, so who cares if it keeps running?
So it's exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You really do care that the OS will not crash if the driver crashes so you won't lose unsaved data.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ninez View PostI don't see your issue here, the same could be said of Linux.
You also state (actually assume) that your system is 'hundreds of times faster' than a microkernel ~ which isn't really true... that is why i pointed out the Blackberry PlayBook, which i can easily compare to iOS and android devices, and i can tell you right now ~ it wasn't 'hundreds of times slower' than iOS/Android ~ in fact, it didn't seem slower to me, at all. It was very much comparable.
anyway, like i said, you could read up on this stuff, As it would probably make more sense to do that ~ over making nonsensical uninformed statements about technology, that you don't really know very much about.
Comment
Comment