4 ms·

Here's Andy Tannenbaum's response to the performance issues of microkernels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA#t=2832 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Here's Andy Tannenbaum's response to the performance issues of microkernels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA#t=2832 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3KuE7UjGA#t=2832 (should start at about 47:15)

tormeh 12y ago
Tl;dr: He thinks reliability trumps performance. I mean, he has a point, but then there's the reliability of the hardware, and any process can be made more reliable if you know the details of the the software instead of just trying to make everything about the system the software runs on reliable. I guess a reliable OS can be a middle ground between bespoke systems with redundant hardware and a single computer running Debian. Well, I guess a reliable OS is always a good thing, but it'll never be enough for everything.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  I am with him. It was putting performance above reliability that has brought the industry to the current state of security exploits that cost millions in tooling, bug fixes and paying damages. We are still very far from other industries where reliability is taken seriously.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Reliability and security are different things. Industrial controller manufacturers often don't give a shit about security, but their products are much more reliable than x86 running Linux.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      I think otherwise. Reliability implies security.
  - taeric 12y ago
    This argument cuts both ways. The emphasis on performance and, you know, working is what led to the massive amount of money in the market. That is, yes there was a cost to this. However, leaving aside the unknowns of whether there would still be millions in tooling necessary for security even with microkernels, you have to provide some sort of reasonable argument that the current market (> billions) would still exist. You can't just take that for granted.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      As I heard once at one software engineering talk, IT is the only field where one can buy a pair of shoes that explode randomly when tying the shoe laces and everyone will find it normal.
      - taeric 12y ago
        Which, of course, completely ignores all of the bat shit insane things people used* to sell and do to each other. The difference isn't that IT has some dangerous crap in it. The difference is that you know some of these dangers. And, you feel that it doesn't belong for some reason. Consider, you probably have highly charged electrical wiring to your house. Fairly high pressure water. Possibly gas. Literally explosive. Several drawers of sharp instruments in your kitchen. Possibly power tools that are literally spinning blades. Of sizes from less than a centimeter to upwards of a meter. Think of a computer less as a safe device that only gives good results, and more as an extremely powerful tool that does what you tell it to do. Very fast. And then be thankful that it won't take your fingers off if you slip while pushing a board across it. * Who am I kidding? We still do a fair bit of it. :) Also... apropos of what? I'm not sure how this followed from my parent post.

tormeh 12y ago

Tl;dr: He thinks reliability trumps performance. I mean, he has a point, but then there's the reliability of the hardware, and any process can be made more reliable if you know the details of the the software instead of just trying to make everything about the system the software runs on reliable. I guess a reliable OS can be a middle ground between bespoke systems with redundant hardware and a single computer running Debian. Well, I guess a reliable OS is always a good thing, but it'll never be enough for everything.

pjmlp 12y ago
I am with him. It was putting performance above reliability that has brought the industry to the current state of security exploits that cost millions in tooling, bug fixes and paying damages. We are still very far from other industries where reliability is taken seriously.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Reliability and security are different things. Industrial controller manufacturers often don't give a shit about security, but their products are much more reliable than x86 running Linux.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    I think otherwise. Reliability implies security.
- taeric 12y ago
  This argument cuts both ways. The emphasis on performance and, you know, working is what led to the massive amount of money in the market. That is, yes there was a cost to this. However, leaving aside the unknowns of whether there would still be millions in tooling necessary for security even with microkernels, you have to provide some sort of reasonable argument that the current market (> billions) would still exist. You can't just take that for granted.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    As I heard once at one software engineering talk, IT is the only field where one can buy a pair of shoes that explode randomly when tying the shoe laces and everyone will find it normal.
    - taeric 12y ago
      Which, of course, completely ignores all of the bat shit insane things people used* to sell and do to each other. The difference isn't that IT has some dangerous crap in it. The difference is that you know some of these dangers. And, you feel that it doesn't belong for some reason. Consider, you probably have highly charged electrical wiring to your house. Fairly high pressure water. Possibly gas. Literally explosive. Several drawers of sharp instruments in your kitchen. Possibly power tools that are literally spinning blades. Of sizes from less than a centimeter to upwards of a meter. Think of a computer less as a safe device that only gives good results, and more as an extremely powerful tool that does what you tell it to do. Very fast. And then be thankful that it won't take your fingers off if you slip while pushing a board across it. * Who am I kidding? We still do a fair bit of it. :) Also... apropos of what? I'm not sure how this followed from my parent post.