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).
next prev 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).