The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Warkentin <andreww591@gmail.com>
To: tuhs@tuhs.org
Subject: [TUHS] Re: Clever code (was Re: Re: Stdin Redirect in Cu History/Alternatives?
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:01:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD-qYGr+Ca8sMq+V=iXAXjuaOY0g7EkU5MWpCP=Y9_tGb5=T+w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221214010531.GK20511@mcvoy.com>

On 12/13/22, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>
> Have you talked to Andy and confirmed that?  I'd be quite surprised if
> he hadn't played with QNX but who knows.  I wouldn't assume he hadn't.
>

I haven't actually talked to him about it. He definitely is aware of
QNX since he's mentioned it on a few occasions, but I'm not sure if he
was aware of it when he wrote the first version of Minix.

Personally I don't see a lot of resemblance between the two, besides
both being single-personality Unix-like microkernel OSes with
lightweight IPC. Minix is more akin to a "serverized" conventional
Unix, whereas QNX seems to embrace its microkernel-ness more fully
with its focus on extensibility and its fairly tight integration of
IPC transport layer and filesystem. There may have been a little bit
of influence, but it's not all that obvious to me.

The pre-3.x versions seem especially un-QNX-like with their more or
less closed set of servers. Even in 3.x, the kernel still seems to
have quite a bit of knowledge about what servers are present and what
messages they accept. QNX does colocate the process server in the
kernel, but it makes very few assumptions about user-mode servers.

>
> And forgive me for asking, do you have some axe to grind against QNX
> or something?
>

Quite the opposite, hence why I'm writing my own OS with a similar architecture.

>
> To me, it's not that surprising that the rest of the world didn't copy
> QNX because the rest of the world was either a mono-kernel or it was
> Mach.  Don't get me started on Mach, it has defenders but I absolutely
> hate it.  Mach is more of a distributed research OS that advertised
> itself as a microkernel.  There is _nothing_ micro about Mach.  It's
> a big bloated mess.
>

Yes, I agree 100% that Mach is a complete and utter failure as a
microkernel, and seems to have almost single-handedly destroyed the
reputation of microkernels. I don't get why everyone was so focused on
Mach-like kernels when there was a better alternative that had been
around in some form for almost a decade before Mach (QNX wasn't the
first of its kind; it seems to have had pretty significant influence
from Thoth).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-14  2:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-10 19:38 [TUHS] " segaloco via TUHS
2022-12-11  0:22 ` [TUHS] " Clem Cole
2022-12-11  2:37   ` segaloco via TUHS
2022-12-11 13:59   ` Michael Kjörling
2022-12-11 14:28     ` Steve Nickolas
2022-12-11 15:04       ` Dan Cross
2022-12-13  1:54         ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-11 17:18     ` Adam Thornton
2022-12-11 18:54       ` Michael Kjörling
2022-12-11 19:55         ` Dave Horsfall
2022-12-11 20:03           ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-11 23:22             ` segaloco via TUHS
2022-12-12  2:15             ` [TUHS] Clever code (was " Bakul Shah
2022-12-12  2:44               ` [TUHS] " Steve Nickolas
2022-12-12  3:09               ` Andrew Warkentin
2022-12-12  3:34                 ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-12  5:00                   ` Kevin Bowling
2022-12-12  5:26                   ` Andrew Warkentin
2022-12-12 15:02                     ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-12 15:29                     ` Clem Cole
2022-12-12 15:39                       ` Dan Cross
2022-12-12 16:04                       ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-12 16:26                         ` Clem Cole
2022-12-12 22:20                         ` Liam Proven
2022-12-12 23:10                           ` segaloco via TUHS
2022-12-12 23:24                             ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-13  2:00                       ` Andrew Warkentin
2022-12-13 13:37                         ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-13 23:00                           ` Andrew Warkentin
2022-12-14  1:05                             ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-14  1:40                               ` segaloco via TUHS
2022-12-14  6:32                                 ` Rich Morin
2022-12-14  2:01                               ` Andrew Warkentin [this message]
2022-12-14  7:49                                 ` arnold
2022-12-14 11:54                                   ` Brad Spencer
2022-12-14 12:08                                     ` [TUHS] Re: (TUHS -> COFF?) Re: Clever code Michael Kjörling
2022-12-14 15:14                                     ` [TUHS] Microware's OS-9 (was: Clever code) G. Branden Robinson
2022-12-14 22:41                                       ` [TUHS] " John Cowan
2022-12-14  9:46                               ` [TUHS] Re: Clever code (was Re: Re: Stdin Redirect in Cu History/Alternatives? Harald Arnesen
2022-12-15 18:33                                 ` Liam Proven
2022-12-16 10:42                                   ` Harald Arnesen
2022-12-18 14:05                                     ` Liam Proven
2022-12-18 15:08                                       ` Stuff Received
2022-12-19 11:47                                         ` Liam Proven
2022-12-20  8:30                                       ` Andrew Warkentin
2022-12-20 11:57                                         ` Liam Proven
2022-12-15  0:29                 ` Bakul Shah
2022-12-15  2:54                   ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-15  5:36                     ` Bakul Shah
2022-12-15 14:02                       ` Dan Cross
2022-12-15 14:06                         ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-15 14:18                           ` Dan Cross
2022-12-15 14:02                       ` Larry McVoy
2022-12-15  8:01                     ` Andrew Warkentin
2022-12-12  9:48               ` [TUHS] Re: Clever code Michael Kjörling
2022-12-12 21:34             ` [TUHS] Re: Stdin Redirect in Cu History/Alternatives? Dave Horsfall
2022-12-12 21:46               ` Chet Ramey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAD-qYGr+Ca8sMq+V=iXAXjuaOY0g7EkU5MWpCP=Y9_tGb5=T+w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=andreww591@gmail.com \
    --cc=tuhs@tuhs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).