11 ms·

MINIX was also created for teaching. Is there a comparison of Xv6 vs. MINIX pros and cons for teaching?

tonysdg 8y ago
I'd like to see any comparison extended to include Pintos as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintos
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
burfog 8y ago
Aside from being small, Xv6 is a normal OS. MINIX was designed to chase the gravely ill-advised microkernel fad that took over academia. You can lump Xv6 in with Linux and BSD, while lumping MINIX in with GNU HURD. The trouble is that glue isn't free: breaking an OS down into simple parts doesn't make the OS simple; the resulting interactions between simple parts become complex. Xv6 is also written in a more modern coding style, using stuff like C99 initializers. It runs on modern hardware, even supporting SMP.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  The jury is still out on microkernels being "gravely ill-advised". Fuchsia, for example, is a modern microkernel that works quite well. The performance concerns that famously killed the microkernel hype are very old at this point. Modern hardware significantly reduces IPC overhead. And lots of the modern application stack (e.g. multiprocess browsers) essentially cobble together microkernel primitives out of comparatively-clunky OS features (e.g. cmsg on Unix). I think most of Linux's success relative to microkernel designs was due to being in the right place at the right time, not due to any fundamental technical factors.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    It might be for some things like performance but they're very successful for small, reliable OS's in embedded scene. Tanenbaum cited a bunch in round 2 of the debate with Torvalds: https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/ https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/
  - module0000 8y ago
    > The jury is still out on microkernels being "gravely ill-advised". Fuchsia, for example, is a modern microkernel that works quite well. They could have said "gravely ill-adopted". You know what they meant and are grinding your personal axe here... Microkernels for all their promise aren't in widespread use. Engineers with a resume headline "I build monolithic kernel operating systems for fun" vs "I build microkernel operating systems for fun" will have significant hiring delta biased towards the monolithic specialists.
    - meken 8y ago
      I think if you have the title "I build X kernel operating systems for fun" as a resume headline, you are in high demand regardless of X.
    - pcwalton 8y ago
      > Engineers with a resume headline "I build monolithic kernel operating systems for fun" vs "I build microkernel operating systems for fun" will have significant hiring delta biased towards the monolithic specialists. No, they won't.
    - jdub 8y ago
      Practically every modern phone platform happens to include a microkernel. Pretty widespread.
    - JdeBP 8y ago
      > Microkernels for all their promise aren't in widespread use. Ah, you haven't heard about MINIX, the operating system used in the ME in modern Intel chipsets and possibly now one of the most widely deployed operating systems on the planet. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642116 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15634014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15634014 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15697888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15697888 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641592
      - oblio 8y ago
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    I remember vezzy-fnord on this subject. * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10824382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10824382) * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301375
  - mwcampbell 8y ago
    > Modern hardware significantly reduces IPC overhead. In case you see this comment 5 days later, can you elaborate? And do the benefits of modern hardware in this area automatically apply to IPC on existing mainstream systems, or does the OS have to specifically use the new support?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- flavio81 8y ago
  >the gravely ill-advised microkernel fad What?! Linus, is that you?
- userbinator 8y ago
  You can lump Xv6 in with Linux and BSD In fact, Xv6 was derived from the UNIX v6. You can think of it as an x86 port of UNIX v6.
sobraton 8y ago
MINIX is much, much closer to being a fully working OS. Hell, you can run X11 on it, it can recompile itself, it has a package manager. xv6, on the other hand, is just bare kernel with no functional purpose.
MisterTea 8y ago
Minix is microkernel based while Xv6 appears to be monolithic.

I'd like to see any comparison extended to include Pintos as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintos

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

burfog 8y ago

Aside from being small, Xv6 is a normal OS. MINIX was designed to chase the gravely ill-advised microkernel fad that took over academia. You can lump Xv6 in with Linux and BSD, while lumping MINIX in with GNU HURD. The trouble is that glue isn't free: breaking an OS down into simple parts doesn't make the OS simple; the resulting interactions between simple parts become complex. Xv6 is also written in a more modern coding style, using stuff like C99 initializers. It runs on modern hardware, even supporting SMP.

pcwalton 8y ago
The jury is still out on microkernels being "gravely ill-advised". Fuchsia, for example, is a modern microkernel that works quite well. The performance concerns that famously killed the microkernel hype are very old at this point. Modern hardware significantly reduces IPC overhead. And lots of the modern application stack (e.g. multiprocess browsers) essentially cobble together microkernel primitives out of comparatively-clunky OS features (e.g. cmsg on Unix). I think most of Linux's success relative to microkernel designs was due to being in the right place at the right time, not due to any fundamental technical factors.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  It might be for some things like performance but they're very successful for small, reliable OS's in embedded scene. Tanenbaum cited a bunch in round 2 of the debate with Torvalds: https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/ https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/
- module0000 8y ago
  > The jury is still out on microkernels being "gravely ill-advised". Fuchsia, for example, is a modern microkernel that works quite well. They could have said "gravely ill-adopted". You know what they meant and are grinding your personal axe here... Microkernels for all their promise aren't in widespread use. Engineers with a resume headline "I build monolithic kernel operating systems for fun" vs "I build microkernel operating systems for fun" will have significant hiring delta biased towards the monolithic specialists.
  - meken 8y ago
    I think if you have the title "I build X kernel operating systems for fun" as a resume headline, you are in high demand regardless of X.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    > Engineers with a resume headline "I build monolithic kernel operating systems for fun" vs "I build microkernel operating systems for fun" will have significant hiring delta biased towards the monolithic specialists. No, they won't.
  - jdub 8y ago
    Practically every modern phone platform happens to include a microkernel. Pretty widespread.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    > Microkernels for all their promise aren't in widespread use. Ah, you haven't heard about MINIX, the operating system used in the ME in modern Intel chipsets and possibly now one of the most widely deployed operating systems on the planet. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642116 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15634014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15634014 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15697888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15697888 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641592
    - oblio 8y ago
- JdeBP 8y ago
  I remember vezzy-fnord on this subject. * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10824382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10824382) * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10301375
- mwcampbell 8y ago
  > Modern hardware significantly reduces IPC overhead. In case you see this comment 5 days later, can you elaborate? And do the benefits of modern hardware in this area automatically apply to IPC on existing mainstream systems, or does the OS have to specifically use the new support?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
flavio81 8y ago
>the gravely ill-advised microkernel fad What?! Linus, is that you?
userbinator 8y ago
You can lump Xv6 in with Linux and BSD In fact, Xv6 was derived from the UNIX v6. You can think of it as an x86 port of UNIX v6.

sobraton 8y ago

MINIX is much, much closer to being a fully working OS. Hell, you can run X11 on it, it can recompile itself, it has a package manager. xv6, on the other hand, is just bare kernel with no functional purpose.

MisterTea 8y ago

Minix is microkernel based while Xv6 appears to be monolithic.