4 ms·

> 1. Linux is too big. Too big for what exactly? Because it's clearly not too big to run. It's been running very well for decades, and Hurd has not. I've know

by mcv 3y ago

> 1. Linux is too big. Too big for what exactly? Because it's clearly not too big to run. It's been running very well for decades, and Hurd has not. I've known for decades that on paper, microkernels and Hurd should be superior, and I've wondered for nearly as long why then they aren't taking off. If they're so good, they should at least be thriving in some niche where that performance matters, shouldn't they? And now I hear that even after 3 whopping decades, it still doesn't run on real hardware! Entire operating systems have been born and died in that time. What is the problem that's making Hurd still not work? > 2. It will take time to write a ton of device drivers, simply because most of them aren't written yet. To that extent, Linux most definitely has an incumbent advantage. But why is Linux the incumbent when Mach and Hurd were conceived 3 years earlier? > But that isn't to say that microkernels also have an advantage here. I would love to believe that, but then why has that advantage not paid off for 30 years? > With all that being said, I definitely don't think Hurd is the future. A Why not? And is this why nobody has been writing those drivers? I don't mean to be shitting on Hurd, but it's been really promising for so long, and not delivering, that it's starting to feel like fusion power: always in the future, nearly there, but never quite here.

darksaints 3y ago
> I've known for decades that on paper, microkernels and Hurd should be superior, and I've wondered for nearly as long why then they aren't taking off. If they're so good, they should at least be thriving in some niche where that performance matters, shouldn't they? They (microkernels) thrive in Automobiles, Aircraft, Spacecraft, Security systems (such as hardware encryption devices), Defense Munitions, Embedded Devices, Maritime devices, radar systems, and many other areas. The common thread here is that they are not just resource constrained and performance sensitive, they are also typically very specialized and mostly write-from-scratch. That last part is the key to understanding why general purpose operating systems mostly use legacy kernels that are decades old. We want to preserve as much as we can from what came before. > But why is Linux the incumbent when Mach and Hurd were conceived 3 years earlier? Because Linux worked earlier. Nobody in the GNU ecosystem knew how to develop a microkernel that worked, let alone drivers for a constantly changing target OS. > I would love to believe that, but then why has that advantage not paid off for 30 years? Again, they have. Almost all RTOSes are microkernels, and the most popular embedded OSes are microkernels. When you're writing something from scratch, it is always going to be easier with a microkernel. Don't mistake Hurd with the concept of a microkernel. Hurd sucks because it has always sucked. It's bloated, poorly documented, relies on a very janky GNU ecosystem that has already mostly adapted to Linux out of practicality concerns, and there is no ecosystem tooling around it. But the advantages of microkernels in general are very real. The best one out there in terms of maturity is QNX, and while practically every modern car on the planet runs on it, it's licensing pretty much precludes it from being used as a general purpose OS.
- themerone 3y ago
  Who's used QNX in automotive for anything other than infotainment? A lot of people seem to think it's being used for vehicle control systems, but I've never been presented with a credible evidence of widespread use in production vehicles.
  - defrost 3y ago
    It's probable that QNX would underpin any future Mitsubishi Electric autonomous driving system, and more certain that it would underpin sensor integration etc. in future Mitsubishi car models. But it's not being used there in current mainstream production. https://www.meaa-mea.com/advanced-mobility/ https://www.meaa-mea.com/advanced-mobility/ https://www.blackberry.com/us/en/success-stories/mitsubishi https://www.blackberry.com/us/en/success-stories/mitsubishi It's certainly difficult to pick through the Blackberry QNX hype to see where it's actually headed outside of infotainment, lot's of fuzzy weasal phrasing: https://blackberry.qnx.com/en/industries/connected-autonomous-vehicles https://blackberry.qnx.com/en/industries/connected-autonomou...
  - darksaints 3y ago
    BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Volkswagen are all users of QNX’s safety-certified versions, which I would assume means more than just infotainment.
    - themerone 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - themerone 3y ago
      Users or licensees, there is a big difference. They could be just be playing around with it in laboratories. Outside of some vague blackberry press materials, I've never seen anything indicating use in vehicles.
- mcv 3y ago
  So Linux is too big for embedded systems. I completely understand that. But I was hoping they'd also be viable for general purpose computers. That's certainly what Tannenbaum argued back in the day. Or could they work if only people would stop focusing on Hurd? Is Hurd a dead end? Or is GNU the real problem and should we abandon that?

by mcv 3y ago

darksaints 3y ago

> I've known for decades that on paper, microkernels and Hurd should be superior, and I've wondered for nearly as long why then they aren't taking off. If they're so good, they should at least be thriving in some niche where that performance matters, shouldn't they? They (microkernels) thrive in Automobiles, Aircraft, Spacecraft, Security systems (such as hardware encryption devices), Defense Munitions, Embedded Devices, Maritime devices, radar systems, and many other areas. The common thread here is that they are not just resource constrained and performance sensitive, they are also typically very specialized and mostly write-from-scratch. That last part is the key to understanding why general purpose operating systems mostly use legacy kernels that are decades old. We want to preserve as much as we can from what came before. > But why is Linux the incumbent when Mach and Hurd were conceived 3 years earlier? Because Linux worked earlier. Nobody in the GNU ecosystem knew how to develop a microkernel that worked, let alone drivers for a constantly changing target OS. > I would love to believe that, but then why has that advantage not paid off for 30 years? Again, they have. Almost all RTOSes are microkernels, and the most popular embedded OSes are microkernels. When you're writing something from scratch, it is always going to be easier with a microkernel. Don't mistake Hurd with the concept of a microkernel. Hurd sucks because it has always sucked. It's bloated, poorly documented, relies on a very janky GNU ecosystem that has already mostly adapted to Linux out of practicality concerns, and there is no ecosystem tooling around it. But the advantages of microkernels in general are very real. The best one out there in terms of maturity is QNX, and while practically every modern car on the planet runs on it, it's licensing pretty much precludes it from being used as a general purpose OS.

themerone 3y ago
Who's used QNX in automotive for anything other than infotainment? A lot of people seem to think it's being used for vehicle control systems, but I've never been presented with a credible evidence of widespread use in production vehicles.
- defrost 3y ago
  It's probable that QNX would underpin any future Mitsubishi Electric autonomous driving system, and more certain that it would underpin sensor integration etc. in future Mitsubishi car models. But it's not being used there in current mainstream production. https://www.meaa-mea.com/advanced-mobility/ https://www.meaa-mea.com/advanced-mobility/ https://www.blackberry.com/us/en/success-stories/mitsubishi https://www.blackberry.com/us/en/success-stories/mitsubishi It's certainly difficult to pick through the Blackberry QNX hype to see where it's actually headed outside of infotainment, lot's of fuzzy weasal phrasing: https://blackberry.qnx.com/en/industries/connected-autonomous-vehicles https://blackberry.qnx.com/en/industries/connected-autonomou...
- darksaints 3y ago
  BMW, Ford, GM, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Volkswagen are all users of QNX’s safety-certified versions, which I would assume means more than just infotainment.
  - themerone 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - themerone 3y ago
    Users or licensees, there is a big difference. They could be just be playing around with it in laboratories. Outside of some vague blackberry press materials, I've never seen anything indicating use in vehicles.
mcv 3y ago
So Linux is too big for embedded systems. I completely understand that. But I was hoping they'd also be viable for general purpose computers. That's certainly what Tannenbaum argued back in the day. Or could they work if only people would stop focusing on Hurd? Is Hurd a dead end? Or is GNU the real problem and should we abandon that?