5 ms·

I don't get it. Tannenbaum would normally keep it in a buildable state -- he's basically the Linus of Minix no? As an aside I enjoy the irony that we are tryin

I don't get it. Tannenbaum would normally keep it in a buildable state -- he's basically the Linus of Minix no? As an aside I enjoy the irony that we are trying to build Minix on Linux systems many years after the debate...

kybernetikos 4y ago
> As an aside I enjoy the irony that we are trying to build Minix on Linux systems many years after the debate... To add another layer - as I understand it, the processors we are mostly running those Linux systems on are secretly running a minix based system for their management functions [1]. [1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/3236064/minix-the-most-popular-os-in-the-world-thanks-to-intel.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3236064/minix-the-most-...
- atleta 4y ago
  Interesting. But it seems that MINIX does not run on the (same) processor as we're running Linux on (which would have been pretty surprising) but there is a separate low power CPU on the mother board that runs the management software under MINIX. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    Yes, it looks like I was confusing it with the AMD equivalent, which does have an ARM core literally in the CPU silicon to run the management software (but looks like it doesn't run minix).
- taftster 4y ago
  This is a good link, appropriate for the conversation, thank you for providing it! Just to rant about this article though, I really dislike this statement by the author: > Why on this green Earth is there a web server in a hidden part of my CPU? WHY? > The only reason I can think of is if the makers of the CPU wanted a way to serve up content via the internet without you knowing about it. That's absolutely not the use case here. Intel is not on some secret conspiracy to collude with governments to serve content from your computer. The management system is a legitimately useful functionality for the support teams of large corporations, public entities (schools, local government), etc. enabling management of their fleet of user devices. It's a very unforgiving and thankless task to be able to support a worldwide workforce, for example, or large non-computer savvy users. Now, does the Intel Management Engine pose a security risk. Absolutely! We tech folk should absolutely know about this capability and be able to make decisions if this functionality should be enabled for our fleet. Having it default "on" without a way to sensibly turn it off broadly or update it when necessary is a big issue. But this is nothing more than Intel giving the majority of its user base functionality that is desirable, not some deep laden conspiracy. I don't like the Intel Management Engine running on my personal device. But I sure appreciate it for its intended use case and audience.
  - nunobrito 4y ago
    That rant is merely your opinion and somewhat optimistic. Reality is that you get an extra CPU running completely on its own without code available nor clear path to disable such "feature". If it can serve data from your computer, it _will_ serve data from your computer. Not everyone across the globe is confortable with lack of privacy on their own devices.
    - taftster 4y ago
      Agreed on your points. I particularly like, "If it can serve data, it will serve data." Totally get that point of view. I fully wish that Intel would have gone with the "opt in" approach. Either opt-in with choices in architecture, or opt-in with the option disabled by default. It's the "always there, you don't see it, you can't disable it" thing that's the problem. Intel messed up here, for sure. But the idea of the Intel Management Engine is sound and extremely useful. And it's the visceral (possibly unsubstantiated) attack against it in discourse that's the thing I'm addressing. I mean, truthfully, maybe the only way to change things anymore is to be overly loud and exaggerate about issues, basically black & white arguments without any middle ground. Maybe social media has brought us to this point, where we can't see issues as both positive and negative. It kind of starts to sound like our politics, in this way. So maybe the only thing that could possibly change how the IME is configured or deployed is to be a huge stinker about it and make large noise. Sad, but that's probably the case.
      - MonkeyClub 4y ago
        > I fully wish that Intel would have gone with the "opt in" approach. Even a sensible opt-out approach would be better than what we have today, we're simply stuck with it whether we like it or now. I think that's what makes most people disregard the fleet management aspect and leap towards the conspiracy angle.
wkat4242 4y ago
Tanenbaum retired and minix was more of an educational project. Not really for production. It was a great way for students to learn about Unix when Unix only ran on expensive computers. Including the design of it (be aware that with the first unixes Sysadmins would receive the code and regularly made changes!)
fijiaarone 4y ago
Linux started as a terminal emulator for Minix.
pjmlp 4y ago
Tanenbaum is 78 years old, and most likely has better things to do with his life as compiling Minix.
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  At 78 I hope I'm still able and enjoying compiling kernels for fun in fact. Sounds like a great way to pass a retirement. :)

kybernetikos 4y ago

> As an aside I enjoy the irony that we are trying to build Minix on Linux systems many years after the debate... To add another layer - as I understand it, the processors we are mostly running those Linux systems on are secretly running a minix based system for their management functions [1]. [1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/3236064/minix-the-most-popular-os-in-the-world-thanks-to-intel.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/3236064/minix-the-most-...

atleta 4y ago
Interesting. But it seems that MINIX does not run on the (same) processor as we're running Linux on (which would have been pretty surprising) but there is a separate low power CPU on the mother board that runs the management software under MINIX. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  Yes, it looks like I was confusing it with the AMD equivalent, which does have an ARM core literally in the CPU silicon to run the management software (but looks like it doesn't run minix).
taftster 4y ago
This is a good link, appropriate for the conversation, thank you for providing it! Just to rant about this article though, I really dislike this statement by the author: > Why on this green Earth is there a web server in a hidden part of my CPU? WHY? > The only reason I can think of is if the makers of the CPU wanted a way to serve up content via the internet without you knowing about it. That's absolutely not the use case here. Intel is not on some secret conspiracy to collude with governments to serve content from your computer. The management system is a legitimately useful functionality for the support teams of large corporations, public entities (schools, local government), etc. enabling management of their fleet of user devices. It's a very unforgiving and thankless task to be able to support a worldwide workforce, for example, or large non-computer savvy users. Now, does the Intel Management Engine pose a security risk. Absolutely! We tech folk should absolutely know about this capability and be able to make decisions if this functionality should be enabled for our fleet. Having it default "on" without a way to sensibly turn it off broadly or update it when necessary is a big issue. But this is nothing more than Intel giving the majority of its user base functionality that is desirable, not some deep laden conspiracy. I don't like the Intel Management Engine running on my personal device. But I sure appreciate it for its intended use case and audience.
- nunobrito 4y ago
  That rant is merely your opinion and somewhat optimistic. Reality is that you get an extra CPU running completely on its own without code available nor clear path to disable such "feature". If it can serve data from your computer, it _will_ serve data from your computer. Not everyone across the globe is confortable with lack of privacy on their own devices.
  - taftster 4y ago
    Agreed on your points. I particularly like, "If it can serve data, it will serve data." Totally get that point of view. I fully wish that Intel would have gone with the "opt in" approach. Either opt-in with choices in architecture, or opt-in with the option disabled by default. It's the "always there, you don't see it, you can't disable it" thing that's the problem. Intel messed up here, for sure. But the idea of the Intel Management Engine is sound and extremely useful. And it's the visceral (possibly unsubstantiated) attack against it in discourse that's the thing I'm addressing. I mean, truthfully, maybe the only way to change things anymore is to be overly loud and exaggerate about issues, basically black & white arguments without any middle ground. Maybe social media has brought us to this point, where we can't see issues as both positive and negative. It kind of starts to sound like our politics, in this way. So maybe the only thing that could possibly change how the IME is configured or deployed is to be a huge stinker about it and make large noise. Sad, but that's probably the case.
    - MonkeyClub 4y ago
      > I fully wish that Intel would have gone with the "opt in" approach. Even a sensible opt-out approach would be better than what we have today, we're simply stuck with it whether we like it or now. I think that's what makes most people disregard the fleet management aspect and leap towards the conspiracy angle.

wkat4242 4y ago

Tanenbaum retired and minix was more of an educational project. Not really for production. It was a great way for students to learn about Unix when Unix only ran on expensive computers. Including the design of it (be aware that with the first unixes Sysadmins would receive the code and regularly made changes!)

fijiaarone 4y ago

Linux started as a terminal emulator for Minix.

pjmlp 4y ago

Tanenbaum is 78 years old, and most likely has better things to do with his life as compiling Minix.

hungryforcodes 4y ago
At 78 I hope I'm still able and enjoying compiling kernels for fun in fact. Sounds like a great way to pass a retirement. :)