7 ms·

Tanenbaum was vindicated two decades ago, but most people have yet to get the memo. A lot are under the impression that basic software design principles apply t

Tanenbaum was vindicated two decades ago, but most people have yet to get the memo. A lot are under the impression that basic software design principles apply to everything besides operating system kernels, for some reason. And the myth is highly persistent.

ris 11y ago
It's quite telling though that most microkernel proponents tend not to be kernel developers.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers. It's quite telling that you have no leg to stand on but to resort to hapless diversions. Or I suppose the flood of researchers who have built viable and innovative microkernel-based architectures throughout the decades are all a bunch of phonies?
  - ris 11y ago
    "Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers." They don't have to be. All they have to do is not go around smugly suggesting they know better than kernel developers and they're ok in my books. Incidentally, precisely how many of those research kernels have become widely used, mainstream kernels capable of high-throughput? And do you really think it has turned out that way because the whole industry is full of blind dumbasses? I think it's a far more likely proposition that they understand something you don't.
    - mystikal 11y ago
      There are zillions of academic solutions that if implemented properly would be better than the industrial version. Academics are just notoriously bad at building real-world systems. I think this is mostly because it's a waste of time and money as far as publications are concerned.
      - ris 11y ago
        This is basically the "everyone's a dumbass" argument.
        mystikal 11y ago
        I didn't say people in industry weren't smart. There's plenty of stuff that gets published at conferences where the industry guys are like, we did that 15 years ago. My argument is that there's lots of great-in-theory but untested-in-practice stuff in academia, and that you can't discount something altogether just because it's untested. It's hardly fair to compare the output of a few grad students over a few years with all of the effort that goes into a major industrial product. And anyway, the architecture of Linux originated in academia too.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in where the software industry is always adopting the most technologically superior solutions by default. No industry works like this. YMMV on mainstream (they are widely adopted, though), but: OKL4, PikeOS, QNX... It's quite obvious you have no background on the issues and are using this as an opportunity for provocation.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > they are widely adopted, though For some definition of "widely". And feel free to stop adding personal attacks to your comments. They do not enhance the credibility of your posts.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        "Widely adopted" is not a synonym for "known by the average consumer".
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I know it's not. And I know about QNX, at least (the others are new to me). And I know that you didn't claim they are mainstream, so we may be quibbling about where we draw lines around the word "widely". But... What's the installed base of systems running QNX, say? (Throw in the others if you wish.) Estimates are acceptable, too, if you don't have hard numbers.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        BlackBerry doesn't seem to give out hard numbers for installations, but they have overviews of the market and lists of particular customers per category here: http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.html http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.htm... It's not only worth looking how many, but what. They're in vehicles, medical devices, industrial automation, military and telecom. Those are all areas where blunders lead to loss of lives, not just annoying downtimes. Insofar as infotainment and telematics is concerned, they estimate at 60% of 2011, so it's likely your car runs QNX.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Some of them are.
  - ris 11y ago
    I don't disagree.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  It is also quite telling that micro-kernel haters fail to acknowledge that they won in the embedded space and software systems for high integrity deployments.
  - ris 11y ago
    I... never said anything about these spaces, which I suspect you would agree require significantly different kernel design from a "desktop system" which is what this topic is supposedly about.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      "Desktop system" is vague, but obviously u-kernels can serve as workstations, and hence desktops. CTOS was a major example of its day, if not the purest possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_Technologies_Operating_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_Technologies_Operat...
      - acqq 11y ago
        FWIW, CTOS was surprisingly unportable, which is hugely contradictory to the claimed advantages in this particular discussion.

ris 11y ago

It's quite telling though that most microkernel proponents tend not to be kernel developers.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers. It's quite telling that you have no leg to stand on but to resort to hapless diversions. Or I suppose the flood of researchers who have built viable and innovative microkernel-based architectures throughout the decades are all a bunch of phonies?
- ris 11y ago
  "Right, because most Linux proponents are kernel hackers." They don't have to be. All they have to do is not go around smugly suggesting they know better than kernel developers and they're ok in my books. Incidentally, precisely how many of those research kernels have become widely used, mainstream kernels capable of high-throughput? And do you really think it has turned out that way because the whole industry is full of blind dumbasses? I think it's a far more likely proposition that they understand something you don't.
  - mystikal 11y ago
    There are zillions of academic solutions that if implemented properly would be better than the industrial version. Academics are just notoriously bad at building real-world systems. I think this is mostly because it's a waste of time and money as far as publications are concerned.
    - ris 11y ago
      This is basically the "everyone's a dumbass" argument.
      - mystikal 11y ago
        I didn't say people in industry weren't smart. There's plenty of stuff that gets published at conferences where the industry guys are like, we did that 15 years ago. My argument is that there's lots of great-in-theory but untested-in-practice stuff in academia, and that you can't discount something altogether just because it's untested. It's hardly fair to compare the output of a few grad students over a few years with all of the effort that goes into a major industrial product. And anyway, the architecture of Linux originated in academia too.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in where the software industry is always adopting the most technologically superior solutions by default. No industry works like this. YMMV on mainstream (they are widely adopted, though), but: OKL4, PikeOS, QNX... It's quite obvious you have no background on the issues and are using this as an opportunity for provocation.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > they are widely adopted, though For some definition of "widely". And feel free to stop adding personal attacks to your comments. They do not enhance the credibility of your posts.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        "Widely adopted" is not a synonym for "known by the average consumer".
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I know it's not. And I know about QNX, at least (the others are new to me). And I know that you didn't claim they are mainstream, so we may be quibbling about where we draw lines around the word "widely". But... What's the installed base of systems running QNX, say? (Throw in the others if you wish.) Estimates are acceptable, too, if you don't have hard numbers.
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        BlackBerry doesn't seem to give out hard numbers for installations, but they have overviews of the market and lists of particular customers per category here: http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.html http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.htm... It's not only worth looking how many, but what. They're in vehicles, medical devices, industrial automation, military and telecom. Those are all areas where blunders lead to loss of lives, not just annoying downtimes. Insofar as infotainment and telematics is concerned, they estimate at 60% of 2011, so it's likely your car runs QNX.
jacquesm 11y ago
Some of them are.
- ris 11y ago
  I don't disagree.
pjmlp 11y ago
It is also quite telling that micro-kernel haters fail to acknowledge that they won in the embedded space and software systems for high integrity deployments.
- ris 11y ago
  I... never said anything about these spaces, which I suspect you would agree require significantly different kernel design from a "desktop system" which is what this topic is supposedly about.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    "Desktop system" is vague, but obviously u-kernels can serve as workstations, and hence desktops. CTOS was a major example of its day, if not the purest possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_Technologies_Operating_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_Technologies_Operat...
    - acqq 11y ago
      FWIW, CTOS was surprisingly unportable, which is hugely contradictory to the claimed advantages in this particular discussion.