3 ms·

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.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      To me it looks like you have some issues pending with L4 folks, that's alright. Meanwhile the industry will keep on slowly adopting micro-kernel inspired best practices, even if you don't see any benefit in doing so. Now hop to reading a bit more about Driver Kit on Catalina.
      - harry8 7y ago
        Again beautifully condescending but that isn't really terribly convincing. Good to see you go right ahead with personal assumptions rather than engage with content because this tells me you are unable to do so. This kind of zero engagement while going straight to various kinds of subtle or less so ad-homonym attacks annoy me. They are contemptuous in all aspects of life. What is your precise claim here? I state there isn't one. But you did use the word "hop" so there's that. Point me at the microkernel based OS, using any microkernel, l4 or any other, that exhibits the standard set of microkernel benefit claims around security, robustness, self-healing drivers and has launched a thousand academic papers and all the rest. Please. Really. I would like to see it. Even if it doesn't exist yet I'd like to see it soon. Really. Condescension is a piss-weak technique exhibited by those who know they don't have a viable argument. Reality is that which continues whether you believe it or not. I say nothing about what seems to me about you from what you've said here because that's just plain rude. I'd love it if we got better operating systems by any technique. I'd be very happy if came via microkernels. But it hasn't and that is just reality. Again, show otherwise if you can. I've stopped following it, maybe it exists? But good on you for going straight for the personal attack and making broad, unspecific claims while offering no substantiation. "industry will keep on keeping on. Good things are to be favoured." DriverKit on OSX. I thought the days were gone when people claimed osx is a microkernel based OS because it has mach code in it. https://lwn.net/Articles/703785/ https://lwn.net/Articles/703785/ doesn't make linux a microkernel. Nor dpdk, openonload nor lwip. I don't recommend hopping. At least 25 years and these are the straws we clutch. Maybe ditch the bad attitude, the belittlement, the condescension and try to understand why we are here? What is the actual reason that we are here? Because in understanding that it might be solved and that might be useful. Pretending we're somewhere else and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who must be silenced is a sure way of making no progress.

QNX for one.

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.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    To me it looks like you have some issues pending with L4 folks, that's alright. Meanwhile the industry will keep on slowly adopting micro-kernel inspired best practices, even if you don't see any benefit in doing so. Now hop to reading a bit more about Driver Kit on Catalina.
    - harry8 7y ago
      Again beautifully condescending but that isn't really terribly convincing. Good to see you go right ahead with personal assumptions rather than engage with content because this tells me you are unable to do so. This kind of zero engagement while going straight to various kinds of subtle or less so ad-homonym attacks annoy me. They are contemptuous in all aspects of life. What is your precise claim here? I state there isn't one. But you did use the word "hop" so there's that. Point me at the microkernel based OS, using any microkernel, l4 or any other, that exhibits the standard set of microkernel benefit claims around security, robustness, self-healing drivers and has launched a thousand academic papers and all the rest. Please. Really. I would like to see it. Even if it doesn't exist yet I'd like to see it soon. Really. Condescension is a piss-weak technique exhibited by those who know they don't have a viable argument. Reality is that which continues whether you believe it or not. I say nothing about what seems to me about you from what you've said here because that's just plain rude. I'd love it if we got better operating systems by any technique. I'd be very happy if came via microkernels. But it hasn't and that is just reality. Again, show otherwise if you can. I've stopped following it, maybe it exists? But good on you for going straight for the personal attack and making broad, unspecific claims while offering no substantiation. "industry will keep on keeping on. Good things are to be favoured." DriverKit on OSX. I thought the days were gone when people claimed osx is a microkernel based OS because it has mach code in it. https://lwn.net/Articles/703785/ https://lwn.net/Articles/703785/ doesn't make linux a microkernel. Nor dpdk, openonload nor lwip. I don't recommend hopping. At least 25 years and these are the straws we clutch. Maybe ditch the bad attitude, the belittlement, the condescension and try to understand why we are here? What is the actual reason that we are here? Because in understanding that it might be solved and that might be useful. Pretending we're somewhere else and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who must be silenced is a sure way of making no progress.