5 ms·

I'm having a hard time dating this rant (despite its historical importance, I can't seem to convince WikiWikiWeb to cough up a page history), but I would guess

I'm having a hard time dating this rant (despite its historical importance, I can't seem to convince WikiWikiWeb to cough up a page history), but I would guess that it's from ~1996. If so, it is a time capsule that represents the stagnant OS thinking in the mid-1990s: the belief was that Unix was dead (!), that Windows was going to be everywhere (!!) -- or that both of these systems were essentially useless and what we _actually_ needed was radical surgery like object-oriented operating systems or microkernels or exokernels or orthogonal persistence (or all of the above!). If it needs to be said, this time was a terrible atmosphere in which to aspire to OS kernel development, a suffering that I expanded on (at far too much length!) in a recent BSD Now.[1] I do not miss the mid-1990s at all, and even now, I find that this ill-informed screed fills me more with resurrected anger than it does any sense of vindication or nostalgia... [1] http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2015_08_19-ubuntu_slaughters_kittens http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2015_08_19-ubuntu_slaughters_k...

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
what we _actually_ needed was radical surgery like object-oriented operating systems or microkernels or exokernels or orthogonal persistence (or all of the above!) Do we not? I watched your interview, but I don't recall you saying anything about research ideas. You even made a jab against Spring which rubbed me the wrong way. An orthogonally persistent microkernel-based operating system, even another Unix, would be great. Which is why I'm looking at MINIX 3 and Hurd as interests. The latter has its anachronisms, but it's still a step forward.
- nextos 11y ago
  I think we need a functional userland (like nix) and a microkernel (like minix), at least. Sadly we will get a userland full of container-ized apps (via systemd) and a monolithic kernel (still linux). Worse is better.
- igravious 11y ago
  We've had the microkernel versus monolithic kernel debate _over_ and _over_. I'm not against research but I've yet to see a convincing argument that microkernels are better. If you decouple the logical bits of the kernel from each other all you'll get is greater impedance and message passing overhead. And for what? A "clean" architecture? Sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good, and I think that applies in this case. We've also got the tools to make monolithic kernel development scale now. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    We've had the microkernel versus monolithic kernel debate _over_ and _over_. I'm not against research but I've yet to see a convincing argument that microkernels are better. Sure, if all you do is read Linus Torvalds ranting. If you decouple the logical bits of the kernel from each other all you'll get is greater impedance and message passing overhead. Debunked many times, as early as 1992 in fact: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.16 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.1... Microkernels have come a long way since Mach. And for what? A "clean" architecture? You clearly have no idea what the advantages are. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it. You're seeing it in the billions of L4 deployments worldwide in wireless modem chipsets. You're seeing it in QNX being everywhere. But then again, you might not see it, because you are willfully ignorant.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      How many of those L4 deployments end up running 90% of their code in the "Linux" or "posix" process?
      - kragen 11y ago
        That might still be an argument in favor of microkernels if the Linux process can't crash the machine or cause it to miss hard-real-time deadlines. Or if you can use it to confine malicious code in the Linux process.
        tedunangst 11y ago
        Fair, but when people talk about "real systems" built with micro kernels, as often as not, it could also describe Linux on xen with a watchdog restart. It's not especially compelling evidence that micro kernels are practical. Want to convince me that micro kernels are the bomb? Tell me about a system where no single service exceeds 40% of the code/runtime.
        kragen 11y ago
- bcantrill 11y ago
  Well, radical surgery was needed -- it just wasn't at the level of the operating system interface, but rather much deeper in the implementation. For example, ZFS post-dates this rant and certainly represents a radical rethink of filesystems -- but it did this without breaking extant applications. That extant applications were (and are) a constraint on the problem is something that's entirely unappreciated by mid-1990s OS research, which was hellbent on throwing out existing abstractions rather than building upon them. Finally, in terms of Spring: based on the fact that you are implicitly defending it, I would guess that you never had to run it. As one of the very few outside of Sun inflicted with that flaming garbage barge, I can tell you that it was not at all a pleasurable experience -- and that whatever novelty it represented was more than offset by its horrifically poor implementation. If I ever harbored any illusions about Spring, they certainly didn't survive my first encounter with a machine running it...
  - kragen 11y ago
    I imagine it wasn't that pleasant being one of Jenner's cowpox inoculees, either. But that was an important step towards eradicating smallpox nine generations later. And the electricity I'm writing this with is produced by a steam engine descended from those that blanketed London in deadly smog for ten generations. Lots of beneficial innovations go through an early stage where they're counterproductive or unpleasant.
x0054 11y ago
If you read the "WimpIsBroken" article linked from the same rant, you will see it reference, negatively, of course, the Windows 8 design, so it can't be all that old, or at the very least, it has been updated recently. I generally dismiss a lot of the things the author is saying for 3 reasons: 1. The author is listing a lot of problems without actually specifically listing why they are in fact problems. For instance, he states that neither Windows nor Unix can teach you how to program. Why would my OS need to be able to teach me how to program? That's like complaining that my Car doesn't teach me how to rebuild the transmission, or my refrigerator doesn't teach me how to generate refrigerant. That's just an obvious example that jumped out at me, there are many others. 2. The author is pointing out a lot of problems without actually pointing out any solutions. People who point out problems but provide no solutions are generally useless. If you ever worked on a project with a person like that, you know what I am talking about. 3. c2.com lacks any sense of design or taste. The author also lacks any ability to communicate his point of view in a logical and consistent manner. I wouldn't trust the author to design a Ski Free game, let alone an operating system. In reality, if tasked with a job to write a Ski Free game, the author would instead return a 30 page paper on the subject of problems with modern game design.
- current_call 11y ago
  c2.com lacks any sense of design or taste. It has the very best design! http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
  - collyw 11y ago
    Personally I agree, but shiny pretty shit seems to sell.
    - x0054 11y ago
      There is a difference between, shiny shit, minimal design, and no design. Ford F150 Raptor is shiny shit, a Jeep Wrangler or an Icon FJ are pretty minimal design, and a subframe and 4 wheels, is just a subframe and 4 wheels. Sure, the letter can get you from point A to point B, but come on, it's not a proper car. I would argue that the design on c2.com and the wonderful diatribe of the fellow with a little too many "fucks" in his opus lacks design entirely rather then keeping it minimal, there is a difference. The lazy lack of design, which is similar to the lazy over-designing, should not be confused with proper balance of minimal design.
luckydude 11y ago
I'm watching Bryan's interview, it's awesome. For some history, the Jeff that he keeps talking about is a former student of mine at Stanford. I wasn't a big deal at Stanford, I was a TA for a Xerox PARC guy, when he retired Stanford asked me if I'd teach the class. This was the papers class in operating systems. If you don't know what "papers class" means it means there are no text books, this is where you go to learn at the cutting edge. Pretty advanced class and Stanford let me teach it. To this day I wonder what they were thinking. That said, I'm proud of how I taught that class. The students learned a lot. Jeff Bonwick was a student who was doing a major in statistics. Somehow he ended up in that OS class. I could tell he was sharp and I was working at Sun in the kernel group, I recruited him as hard as I could. He asked me why I would want him, his exact words were "I can't program in C". I told him that I could teach him how to program, I can't teach people how to be smart. He was very, very smart. I told him when he came to Sun he would go far higher than I ever did and I was right, he did. Bryan is cut from the same cloth. He's an OS geek. There aren't many of those geeks around these days. Go him.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  240? Wow, indeed. I am surprised an "outsider" would teach that.
  - luckydude 11y ago
    Yup, CS240, still have the class notes.
    - luckydude 11y ago
      If anyone cares, I learned a lot teaching that class. Happy to share.
      - dang 11y ago
        We care! Please do.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

what we _actually_ needed was radical surgery like object-oriented operating systems or microkernels or exokernels or orthogonal persistence (or all of the above!) Do we not? I watched your interview, but I don't recall you saying anything about research ideas. You even made a jab against Spring which rubbed me the wrong way. An orthogonally persistent microkernel-based operating system, even another Unix, would be great. Which is why I'm looking at MINIX 3 and Hurd as interests. The latter has its anachronisms, but it's still a step forward.

nextos 11y ago
I think we need a functional userland (like nix) and a microkernel (like minix), at least. Sadly we will get a userland full of container-ized apps (via systemd) and a monolithic kernel (still linux). Worse is better.
igravious 11y ago
We've had the microkernel versus monolithic kernel debate _over_ and _over_. I'm not against research but I've yet to see a convincing argument that microkernels are better. If you decouple the logical bits of the kernel from each other all you'll get is greater impedance and message passing overhead. And for what? A "clean" architecture? Sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good, and I think that applies in this case. We've also got the tools to make monolithic kernel development scale now. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  We've had the microkernel versus monolithic kernel debate _over_ and _over_. I'm not against research but I've yet to see a convincing argument that microkernels are better. Sure, if all you do is read Linus Torvalds ranting. If you decouple the logical bits of the kernel from each other all you'll get is greater impedance and message passing overhead. Debunked many times, as early as 1992 in fact: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.16 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.51.1... Microkernels have come a long way since Mach. And for what? A "clean" architecture? You clearly have no idea what the advantages are. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it. You're seeing it in the billions of L4 deployments worldwide in wireless modem chipsets. You're seeing it in QNX being everywhere. But then again, you might not see it, because you are willfully ignorant.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    How many of those L4 deployments end up running 90% of their code in the "Linux" or "posix" process?
    - kragen 11y ago
      That might still be an argument in favor of microkernels if the Linux process can't crash the machine or cause it to miss hard-real-time deadlines. Or if you can use it to confine malicious code in the Linux process.
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        Fair, but when people talk about "real systems" built with micro kernels, as often as not, it could also describe Linux on xen with a watchdog restart. It's not especially compelling evidence that micro kernels are practical. Want to convince me that micro kernels are the bomb? Tell me about a system where no single service exceeds 40% of the code/runtime.
        kragen 11y ago
bcantrill 11y ago
Well, radical surgery was needed -- it just wasn't at the level of the operating system interface, but rather much deeper in the implementation. For example, ZFS post-dates this rant and certainly represents a radical rethink of filesystems -- but it did this without breaking extant applications. That extant applications were (and are) a constraint on the problem is something that's entirely unappreciated by mid-1990s OS research, which was hellbent on throwing out existing abstractions rather than building upon them. Finally, in terms of Spring: based on the fact that you are implicitly defending it, I would guess that you never had to run it. As one of the very few outside of Sun inflicted with that flaming garbage barge, I can tell you that it was not at all a pleasurable experience -- and that whatever novelty it represented was more than offset by its horrifically poor implementation. If I ever harbored any illusions about Spring, they certainly didn't survive my first encounter with a machine running it...
- kragen 11y ago
  I imagine it wasn't that pleasant being one of Jenner's cowpox inoculees, either. But that was an important step towards eradicating smallpox nine generations later. And the electricity I'm writing this with is produced by a steam engine descended from those that blanketed London in deadly smog for ten generations. Lots of beneficial innovations go through an early stage where they're counterproductive or unpleasant.

x0054 11y ago

If you read the "WimpIsBroken" article linked from the same rant, you will see it reference, negatively, of course, the Windows 8 design, so it can't be all that old, or at the very least, it has been updated recently. I generally dismiss a lot of the things the author is saying for 3 reasons: 1. The author is listing a lot of problems without actually specifically listing why they are in fact problems. For instance, he states that neither Windows nor Unix can teach you how to program. Why would my OS need to be able to teach me how to program? That's like complaining that my Car doesn't teach me how to rebuild the transmission, or my refrigerator doesn't teach me how to generate refrigerant. That's just an obvious example that jumped out at me, there are many others. 2. The author is pointing out a lot of problems without actually pointing out any solutions. People who point out problems but provide no solutions are generally useless. If you ever worked on a project with a person like that, you know what I am talking about. 3. c2.com lacks any sense of design or taste. The author also lacks any ability to communicate his point of view in a logical and consistent manner. I wouldn't trust the author to design a Ski Free game, let alone an operating system. In reality, if tasked with a job to write a Ski Free game, the author would instead return a 30 page paper on the subject of problems with modern game design.

current_call 11y ago
c2.com lacks any sense of design or taste. It has the very best design! http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
- collyw 11y ago
  Personally I agree, but shiny pretty shit seems to sell.
  - x0054 11y ago
    There is a difference between, shiny shit, minimal design, and no design. Ford F150 Raptor is shiny shit, a Jeep Wrangler or an Icon FJ are pretty minimal design, and a subframe and 4 wheels, is just a subframe and 4 wheels. Sure, the letter can get you from point A to point B, but come on, it's not a proper car. I would argue that the design on c2.com and the wonderful diatribe of the fellow with a little too many "fucks" in his opus lacks design entirely rather then keeping it minimal, there is a difference. The lazy lack of design, which is similar to the lazy over-designing, should not be confused with proper balance of minimal design.

luckydude 11y ago

I'm watching Bryan's interview, it's awesome. For some history, the Jeff that he keeps talking about is a former student of mine at Stanford. I wasn't a big deal at Stanford, I was a TA for a Xerox PARC guy, when he retired Stanford asked me if I'd teach the class. This was the papers class in operating systems. If you don't know what "papers class" means it means there are no text books, this is where you go to learn at the cutting edge. Pretty advanced class and Stanford let me teach it. To this day I wonder what they were thinking. That said, I'm proud of how I taught that class. The students learned a lot. Jeff Bonwick was a student who was doing a major in statistics. Somehow he ended up in that OS class. I could tell he was sharp and I was working at Sun in the kernel group, I recruited him as hard as I could. He asked me why I would want him, his exact words were "I can't program in C". I told him that I could teach him how to program, I can't teach people how to be smart. He was very, very smart. I told him when he came to Sun he would go far higher than I ever did and I was right, he did. Bryan is cut from the same cloth. He's an OS geek. There aren't many of those geeks around these days. Go him.

tedunangst 11y ago
240? Wow, indeed. I am surprised an "outsider" would teach that.
- luckydude 11y ago
  Yup, CS240, still have the class notes.
  - luckydude 11y ago
    If anyone cares, I learned a lot teaching that class. Happy to share.
    - dang 11y ago
      We care! Please do.