13 ms·

I think that it is exciting that people are still working on Hurd and there is a new release synced with Buster. I think there is latent potential in microkerne

I think that it is exciting that people are still working on Hurd and there is a new release synced with Buster. I think there is latent potential in microkernels and that we may actually be at in position to exploit some of the benefits such as heightened security and stability. While at the same time the performance cost of context switching could be reduced due to the higher number of cores on modern chips (especially compared to the hardware available in the 90s). One of the biggest adoption challenge any new operating presents is hardware compatibility and well a reason to try it. 80% software compatibility with Debian is a big accomplishment, so this is probably worth spinning up a virtual machine to play around with.

harry8 7y ago
Well I've been hearing about those benefits for at least 20 years. None yet actually sighted in the wild. Any attempted explanations from the microkernel religious zealots has been thoroughly unconvincing (because mach is slow, so?). Maybe you're right, I'd love to see it if you are. But while prior performance is no guarantee of the future, as they say in the funds management adverts, a pattern of repeated failure is something maybe not to completely ignore. Is there a reason for it that is being overlooked or glossed over. (In mutual funds it was and is M.E.R.) Stallman talks about hurd being really hard to debug, is that a thing? Or is there some kind of combinational explosion using multiple servers a message passing that isn't there with a monothlithic kernel? Something else entirely? Anyway I'll go back to the american monolithic kernel conspiracy to destroy OS research and keep the Europeans out and ask the brothers if they can think of anything. (That's a joke, right? Yet I've heard it said in the absence of irony...)
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Maybe you should take your eyes out of the UNIX clone desktop and look into OSes powering life critical embedded deployments.
  - harry8 7y ago
    Followed all your links and found precisely nothing. So many microkernel zealots, down vote storm ahoy. Must be annoying for those involved who are serious engineers and researchers.
    - philjohn 7y ago
      QNX for one.
      - harry8 7y ago
        Really? If it's such a great example of a multi server, microkernel based os why isn't it used for everything that needs to be secure? I've been hearing QNX as the one word rebuttal for why is not getting traction for 15 years. Still hasn't got traction, afaict.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Ah being one of the most used OS in embedded deployments across the world isn't getting traction, nice try. What about your Intel CPU being at the mercy of Minix 3 to validate its execution state, better?
        harry8 7y ago
        Actually no. These are small os's, they're great and useful. There are others. My former, now banrkupt, employers claim L4 code I contributed to is running on over a billion phones. is uTron, eCos etc still dominant in that space? This is not showing the touted benefits of microkernel based, multiserver operating systems. This is not a secure operating system, this is not a robust operating system, this is not self-healing drivers. Is very small, monolithic a better description of what these are? Do something like spin up a web-server on a multi server OS and demonstrate it's very hard to hack compared to apache on linux. Make it convincing enough so people use it. DJB did this with qmail and it really is convincing. How long have mircorkernel proponents been talking up improved security, robustness and resilience? 25 years? More? So we've had time and a mountain of engineering resources, including some of my own. It's reasonable to ask to see it. If we can't, it's reasonable to ask why not yet. It really is reasonable to ask. In my opinion it's a sign of weakness to simply belittle anyone who does. But hey, this is a weekend microkernel HN story perhaps mostly read by the microkernel faithful so reasonable may not be the way forward, easier to just to act as though it's somehow completely unreasonable. Because anyone who hitches their wagon to the next big thing desperately wants it to succeed, and why not? Promotion is important for mindshare and so on. I have sympathy but I think Feynmann summed it up correctly: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." I'll say it again so the point isn't lost: I would love to see those benefits in the wild. I really, really would.
- robotbikes 7y ago
  Well Intel chose minix to run their often despised management engine, so their engineers saw some benefit there to the microkernel architecture. Google is putting at least nomimal developer resources into Fuschia. And the L4 microkernel and derivatives displayed that microkernels aren't doomed to be slow. I think that Linux is probably going to be the dominant free software kernel for quite some time especially since it has finally gotten to the point of at least receiving nominal driver support by hardware manufacturers. So Hurd will be a curiosity for now but considering its history it is still very cool that development continues. Whether it will become useful in ways that Linux is not remains to be seen.
  - zitterbewegung 7y ago
    The L4 microkernel is currently being used by Apple in the secure enclave. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209632 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209632
    - harry8 7y ago
      Looks interesting. My former colleagues worked on porting osx to l4 more than a decade ago. That still doesn't look like a microkernel based, multi server os to me and does not claim to exhibit those of touted advantages. This reminds me more of dresdens live demo cd from about 2006. Great stuff, but more of a virtualisation layer than an os. I'd like to see it stand up.
      - anyfoo 7y ago
        Just out of curiosity, are you saying you don’t think the OS running on the Secure Enclave processor (which is separate from the main OS) looks like a multi server microkernel, or are you still referring to the osx on L4 Experiment you mentioned?
    - carapace 7y ago
      And General Dynamics[1] bought OK Labs[2] in 2012, so presumably OKL4 or a descendant is in use there, eh? (In addition to "over 2 billion mobile phones".) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Kernel_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Kernel_Labs
- ken 7y ago
  You may also recall hearing about the benefits of GC for the 40 or so years before it became mainstream (because GC is slow, right?). When advantages exist, they will eventually be exploited. It may take new research (better algorithms), new hardware (faster processors), or a new context (internet security), and those take time, but the original reasons for inventing the technology don't expire. As far as application of technology goes, a couple decades is not very long at all. Nearly every computing technology I use today was loudly rejected by the mainstream, right up until it wasn't. Being unpopular seems to have no impact on the eventual success of computing technology, if it's a good idea. When you have to resort to name-calling ("religious zealots") to explain why you won't look at actual advantages in computing, it makes me even more convinced that it's the correct approach, and will eventually win out.
- phkahler 7y ago
  Graphics drivers.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

harry8 7y ago

Well I've been hearing about those benefits for at least 20 years. None yet actually sighted in the wild. Any attempted explanations from the microkernel religious zealots has been thoroughly unconvincing (because mach is slow, so?). Maybe you're right, I'd love to see it if you are. But while prior performance is no guarantee of the future, as they say in the funds management adverts, a pattern of repeated failure is something maybe not to completely ignore. Is there a reason for it that is being overlooked or glossed over. (In mutual funds it was and is M.E.R.) Stallman talks about hurd being really hard to debug, is that a thing? Or is there some kind of combinational explosion using multiple servers a message passing that isn't there with a monothlithic kernel? Something else entirely? Anyway I'll go back to the american monolithic kernel conspiracy to destroy OS research and keep the Europeans out and ask the brothers if they can think of anything. (That's a joke, right? Yet I've heard it said in the absence of irony...)

pjmlp 7y ago
Maybe you should take your eyes out of the UNIX clone desktop and look into OSes powering life critical embedded deployments.
- harry8 7y ago
  Followed all your links and found precisely nothing. So many microkernel zealots, down vote storm ahoy. Must be annoying for those involved who are serious engineers and researchers.
  - philjohn 7y ago
    QNX for one.
    - harry8 7y ago
      Really? If it's such a great example of a multi server, microkernel based os why isn't it used for everything that needs to be secure? I've been hearing QNX as the one word rebuttal for why is not getting traction for 15 years. Still hasn't got traction, afaict.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Ah being one of the most used OS in embedded deployments across the world isn't getting traction, nice try. What about your Intel CPU being at the mercy of Minix 3 to validate its execution state, better?
        harry8 7y ago
        Actually no. These are small os's, they're great and useful. There are others. My former, now banrkupt, employers claim L4 code I contributed to is running on over a billion phones. is uTron, eCos etc still dominant in that space? This is not showing the touted benefits of microkernel based, multiserver operating systems. This is not a secure operating system, this is not a robust operating system, this is not self-healing drivers. Is very small, monolithic a better description of what these are? Do something like spin up a web-server on a multi server OS and demonstrate it's very hard to hack compared to apache on linux. Make it convincing enough so people use it. DJB did this with qmail and it really is convincing. How long have mircorkernel proponents been talking up improved security, robustness and resilience? 25 years? More? So we've had time and a mountain of engineering resources, including some of my own. It's reasonable to ask to see it. If we can't, it's reasonable to ask why not yet. It really is reasonable to ask. In my opinion it's a sign of weakness to simply belittle anyone who does. But hey, this is a weekend microkernel HN story perhaps mostly read by the microkernel faithful so reasonable may not be the way forward, easier to just to act as though it's somehow completely unreasonable. Because anyone who hitches their wagon to the next big thing desperately wants it to succeed, and why not? Promotion is important for mindshare and so on. I have sympathy but I think Feynmann summed it up correctly: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." I'll say it again so the point isn't lost: I would love to see those benefits in the wild. I really, really would.
robotbikes 7y ago
Well Intel chose minix to run their often despised management engine, so their engineers saw some benefit there to the microkernel architecture. Google is putting at least nomimal developer resources into Fuschia. And the L4 microkernel and derivatives displayed that microkernels aren't doomed to be slow. I think that Linux is probably going to be the dominant free software kernel for quite some time especially since it has finally gotten to the point of at least receiving nominal driver support by hardware manufacturers. So Hurd will be a curiosity for now but considering its history it is still very cool that development continues. Whether it will become useful in ways that Linux is not remains to be seen.
- zitterbewegung 7y ago
  The L4 microkernel is currently being used by Apple in the secure enclave. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209632 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209632
  - harry8 7y ago
    Looks interesting. My former colleagues worked on porting osx to l4 more than a decade ago. That still doesn't look like a microkernel based, multi server os to me and does not claim to exhibit those of touted advantages. This reminds me more of dresdens live demo cd from about 2006. Great stuff, but more of a virtualisation layer than an os. I'd like to see it stand up.
    - anyfoo 7y ago
      Just out of curiosity, are you saying you don’t think the OS running on the Secure Enclave processor (which is separate from the main OS) looks like a multi server microkernel, or are you still referring to the osx on L4 Experiment you mentioned?
  - carapace 7y ago
    And General Dynamics[1] bought OK Labs[2] in 2012, so presumably OKL4 or a descendant is in use there, eh? (In addition to "over 2 billion mobile phones".) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Kernel_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Kernel_Labs
ken 7y ago
You may also recall hearing about the benefits of GC for the 40 or so years before it became mainstream (because GC is slow, right?). When advantages exist, they will eventually be exploited. It may take new research (better algorithms), new hardware (faster processors), or a new context (internet security), and those take time, but the original reasons for inventing the technology don't expire. As far as application of technology goes, a couple decades is not very long at all. Nearly every computing technology I use today was loudly rejected by the mainstream, right up until it wasn't. Being unpopular seems to have no impact on the eventual success of computing technology, if it's a good idea. When you have to resort to name-calling ("religious zealots") to explain why you won't look at actual advantages in computing, it makes me even more convinced that it's the correct approach, and will eventually win out.
phkahler 7y ago
Graphics drivers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]