3 ms·

Minix 3.2.1 Released

66 points by geeknik 14y ago

fusiongyro 14y ago
There's no need to visit that graveyard to read the actual article, which is here: http://www.minix3.org/releasenotes-321.html http://www.minix3.org/releasenotes-321.html
devinus 14y ago
I can't wait for Minix on the RPi!
d4mi3n 14y ago
This is my first time hearing about Minix, and the new architecture seems interesting. Are there any other linux distributions that use something similar to Minix's micro-kernel approach, or is this a bit of an oddity?
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Poe's Law strikes again. I can't tell if you're making a joke or not. Assuming you're being serious: no. Linux distributions do not work this way because Linux was itself deliberately designed to be unlike Minix.
  - mercurial 14y ago
    I suppose it depends on what you mean by"Linux". If you mean the userland, you can find Debian with a Hurd kernel.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      By "Linux distribution" I have reasonably assumed that he was talking about a Linux distribution.
  - sltkr 14y ago
    I wouldn't say that Linux was "deliberately designed to be unlike Minix" -- after all, Torvalds' original announcement [1] was in comp.os.minix and he admitted that his OS "resembles [Minix] somewhat". It's more accurate to say that Linux evolved to be very different from Minix because of Torvald's focus on pragmatism. 1. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/comp.os.mi...
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      I think that's a better way to characterise it, but I was definitely referring to the famous Torvalds/Tannenbaum debate.
- krelian 14y ago
  Minix is not a linux distribution.
  - fosap 14y ago
    It is a different kernel with a netbsd userland. I somehow expect a Debian/minix to come out soon.
- qznc 14y ago
  If you do not know about Minix and Microkernels, you probably want to dig into the famous debate between Tanenbaum and Torvalds. http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deba...
- e12e 14y ago
  A "Linux distribution" - by definition - use the Linux kernel - as there is no "Linux" system/os. So RedHat, Debian/GNU Linux, Ubuntu and Android are all "Linux distributions" (although, GNU/Linux is usually a better term [edit: Android, afaik does not use a lot, if any GNU code]). FreeBSD, Nexenta (open source Solaris with a GNU userland), Debian/kfreeBSD and Debian/HURD are not Linux distributions, but they are operating system distributions. The latter one would be similar in the sense that HURD is a microkernel.
frozenport 14y ago
Unanswered Question: why Minix?
- rajeevk 14y ago
  Minix is very good for learning internals of operating system. In my second year of undergrad, I went through the code of minix and and it was a great learning experience. I could learn a lot about the internals of operating system by looking at real working code rather than just reading theories. The Linux code is too complicated for beginner. I think, Linux can not replace minix in educational world.
  - reidrac 14y ago
    Circa 1999 I studied Minix in a operating design course, but in the same way we studied Amoeba or Mach; in fact we used a pre 1.0 Linux kernel for practice (I don't remember the distro, it could be custom), and it was small enough to understand the different parts, hack, compile and run. "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation" (included Minix) and "Modern Operating Systems" are great books and I think is because of them that Minix is relevant in OS teaching (specially OSDI, although I enjoyed MOS too). EDIT: typo
    - limmeau 14y ago
      In 1999, Linux was already in the 2.0s or 2.2s; did your course deliberately use an old Linux kernel for simplicity?
      - reidrac 14y ago
        I think so. Besides the computers we had access in the laboratory were limited in resources so a smaller code base I guess had its benefits in compile time.
- thirsteh 14y ago
  Andrew Tanenbaum explains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA
cerales 14y ago
Anyone care to give a very cursory run-down on why someone would look at Minix in this day and age instead of one of the BSDs? Particularly since those release notes mention bringing in the NetBSD build system and much of its userspace. Not to say that I think it's bad to have plenty of unixes floating around - just curious.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  Minix is a true microkernel architecture, but also a complete and practical OS. The analogy to NetBSD is a good one, since they're both largely didactic devices, but they demonstrate radically different internal operating system architectures.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Minix is a microkernel architecture. Many of the services which in other OSes live in kernel space are pushed out into standalone processes. The main goal is to improve reliability. Bad drivers or bad hardware are the leading cause of lockups these days. If you isolate the drivers, file system etc from one another, you can prevent the whole system from dying. Minix3 goes further than its predecessors by adding a "reincarnation server", which periodically pings other servers and kills/restarts them if they've become unresponsive. Minix essentially does at a single-system level what cloud architectures try to do at a multi-system level: assume that the parts are unreliable, isolate faults and recover by restarting sub-units. To me the more interesting possibility is that in a microkernel world you could solve a number of classic OS/system software bunfights. Databases, for example, tend to fight a bit with OSes about the best way to buffer data or flush to disks. In a microkernel system you can arrange matters so that the database provides its own memory and disk management. It's just another process; nothing special. Here's the report that was written about the design: http://www.minix3.org/docs/jorrit-herder/osr-jul06.pdf http://www.minix3.org/docs/jorrit-herder/osr-jul06.pdf
  - thirsteh 14y ago
    It's also for security. If you find a security vulnerability in e.g. the sound driver, you're not going to get root access. Andrew Tanenbaum explains it well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA
pilgrim689 14y ago
I'm only familiar with the QNX microkernel from working in safety-critical systems. I'm really excited for the possibility of an open source microkernel getting some mainstream attention, since the benefits (modularity, reliability, maintainability, security, etc.) of a microkernel are just too real to ignore now. Can someone explain how Minix compares to Hurd? In terms of how far ahead both projects are, the differences in their architecture and visions?

66 points by geeknik 14y ago

There's no need to visit that graveyard to read the actual article, which is here: http://www.minix3.org/releasenotes-321.html http://www.minix3.org/releasenotes-321.html

devinus 14y ago

I can't wait for Minix on the RPi!

d4mi3n 14y ago

This is my first time hearing about Minix, and the new architecture seems interesting. Are there any other linux distributions that use something similar to Minix's micro-kernel approach, or is this a bit of an oddity?

jacques_chester 14y ago
Poe's Law strikes again. I can't tell if you're making a joke or not. Assuming you're being serious: no. Linux distributions do not work this way because Linux was itself deliberately designed to be unlike Minix.
- mercurial 14y ago
  I suppose it depends on what you mean by"Linux". If you mean the userland, you can find Debian with a Hurd kernel.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    By "Linux distribution" I have reasonably assumed that he was talking about a Linux distribution.
- sltkr 14y ago
  I wouldn't say that Linux was "deliberately designed to be unlike Minix" -- after all, Torvalds' original announcement [1] was in comp.os.minix and he admitted that his OS "resembles [Minix] somewhat". It's more accurate to say that Linux evolved to be very different from Minix because of Torvald's focus on pragmatism. 1. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/comp.os.mi...
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    I think that's a better way to characterise it, but I was definitely referring to the famous Torvalds/Tannenbaum debate.
krelian 14y ago
Minix is not a linux distribution.
- fosap 14y ago
  It is a different kernel with a netbsd userland. I somehow expect a Debian/minix to come out soon.
qznc 14y ago
If you do not know about Minix and Microkernels, you probably want to dig into the famous debate between Tanenbaum and Torvalds. http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deba...
e12e 14y ago
A "Linux distribution" - by definition - use the Linux kernel - as there is no "Linux" system/os. So RedHat, Debian/GNU Linux, Ubuntu and Android are all "Linux distributions" (although, GNU/Linux is usually a better term [edit: Android, afaik does not use a lot, if any GNU code]). FreeBSD, Nexenta (open source Solaris with a GNU userland), Debian/kfreeBSD and Debian/HURD are not Linux distributions, but they are operating system distributions. The latter one would be similar in the sense that HURD is a microkernel.

frozenport 14y ago

Unanswered Question: why Minix?

rajeevk 14y ago
Minix is very good for learning internals of operating system. In my second year of undergrad, I went through the code of minix and and it was a great learning experience. I could learn a lot about the internals of operating system by looking at real working code rather than just reading theories. The Linux code is too complicated for beginner. I think, Linux can not replace minix in educational world.
- reidrac 14y ago
  Circa 1999 I studied Minix in a operating design course, but in the same way we studied Amoeba or Mach; in fact we used a pre 1.0 Linux kernel for practice (I don't remember the distro, it could be custom), and it was small enough to understand the different parts, hack, compile and run. "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation" (included Minix) and "Modern Operating Systems" are great books and I think is because of them that Minix is relevant in OS teaching (specially OSDI, although I enjoyed MOS too). EDIT: typo
  - limmeau 14y ago
    In 1999, Linux was already in the 2.0s or 2.2s; did your course deliberately use an old Linux kernel for simplicity?
    - reidrac 14y ago
      I think so. Besides the computers we had access in the laboratory were limited in resources so a smaller code base I guess had its benefits in compile time.
thirsteh 14y ago
Andrew Tanenbaum explains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA

cerales 14y ago

Anyone care to give a very cursory run-down on why someone would look at Minix in this day and age instead of one of the BSDs? Particularly since those release notes mention bringing in the NetBSD build system and much of its userspace. Not to say that I think it's bad to have plenty of unixes floating around - just curious.

fusiongyro 14y ago
Minix is a true microkernel architecture, but also a complete and practical OS. The analogy to NetBSD is a good one, since they're both largely didactic devices, but they demonstrate radically different internal operating system architectures.
jacques_chester 14y ago
Minix is a microkernel architecture. Many of the services which in other OSes live in kernel space are pushed out into standalone processes. The main goal is to improve reliability. Bad drivers or bad hardware are the leading cause of lockups these days. If you isolate the drivers, file system etc from one another, you can prevent the whole system from dying. Minix3 goes further than its predecessors by adding a "reincarnation server", which periodically pings other servers and kills/restarts them if they've become unresponsive. Minix essentially does at a single-system level what cloud architectures try to do at a multi-system level: assume that the parts are unreliable, isolate faults and recover by restarting sub-units. To me the more interesting possibility is that in a microkernel world you could solve a number of classic OS/system software bunfights. Databases, for example, tend to fight a bit with OSes about the best way to buffer data or flush to disks. In a microkernel system you can arrange matters so that the database provides its own memory and disk management. It's just another process; nothing special. Here's the report that was written about the design: http://www.minix3.org/docs/jorrit-herder/osr-jul06.pdf http://www.minix3.org/docs/jorrit-herder/osr-jul06.pdf
- thirsteh 14y ago
  It's also for security. If you find a security vulnerability in e.g. the sound driver, you're not going to get root access. Andrew Tanenbaum explains it well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA

pilgrim689 14y ago

I'm only familiar with the QNX microkernel from working in safety-critical systems. I'm really excited for the possibility of an open source microkernel getting some mainstream attention, since the benefits (modularity, reliability, maintainability, security, etc.) of a microkernel are just too real to ignore now. Can someone explain how Minix compares to Hurd? In terms of how far ahead both projects are, the differences in their architecture and visions?