From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 17779 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2022 02:02:59 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 14 Dec 2022 02:02:59 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F7D42461; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:02:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76A1142460 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:02:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id u19so22747262ejm.8 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 18:02:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iObgavv+nfx0Hb8CJJTPsHO4Z0PPtRTy7P+9BDC59oY=; b=lm/UfuExWEdSHxBAr2DMy/szKPugQ1Rh+nuM2d22B5zUpOyEmMo1KVmLEnLcR57DyI +imbCWXTJkBeIZMGeBnqvC6G5oq3LfqF8NjpZ0U1SGCp5XRxOiZyUtzeDk8dAtUFSfdN /I5wlaj/4XQEfy9AHViWst1kNNBc6paVGpODXodDvIijGw3+E0Fr8JPFMC6ohC0SDILV K/KUQOht+rLBblyT0JYia7WxUqBg5fx7CcIfAO1TV0oH5Rxf5lcS0vc8fevioyB9ux9S GatycRnYwqwUCpW3g++/UtidkFDBmDSc+kg7BzKlNgm73ZC6RttB27YC24mE30YoVB6I TEqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iObgavv+nfx0Hb8CJJTPsHO4Z0PPtRTy7P+9BDC59oY=; b=D510clpx36b0ABsEPe/rUsc+Ye4aFt578GCqyhUBzFvGDj5N2zJzyovU4E/S/Ain02 RHkcXWtd6wEMtCBdyj/K+c+CbZsQ7WeldIZ/n+ECyOin8MRytGvNDO8H0evP0Sv+0Gqd kelZV/SqwFu4XizBdxFz//sVopQ1rzkOSWQUntOUBqM04YLP+vAb37bLTCzAfOZ7dWUc nWMEt7F8695sXLer4HHv0te7EqTEwdO86L1qxBzNQY5QENGLKaLNeDGI+P3IIaZzhVms 7vJZlLWKHYstKmo/+pLSIL8/EKWga5FpZabHcdCl0bJIC7LRaT/8PdF7B0lQDnz+RU3T WPuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkvM9Ah9wORBptpTwEk/QBTUNxa4jOdCVB/Cq5g03S0q05rV5WX q7QxkOgVZpzA71ThRaEevPQINNVW4dKtLy2a1PKfFaaK X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf46f25gJU5TCsb8etQfV1QRnuLBzbCJlrdz2H5UWYGVBaLgy+O5IN/EH7Nsvp68EUTcxAdVvNJTdUf3JBXjbwo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:29ca:b0:7c0:d0da:d9c8 with SMTP id y10-20020a17090629ca00b007c0d0dad9c8mr20593171eje.712.1670983307495; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 18:01:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:907:767c:b0:7c1:4150:c763 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 18:01:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20221214010531.GK20511@mcvoy.com> References: <20221211200327.GC8801@mcvoy.com> <8F5B431B-3789-42C7-8E34-0B6A417B41CF@iitbombay.org> <20221212033453.GE8801@mcvoy.com> <20221213133726.GA20511@mcvoy.com> <20221214010531.GK20511@mcvoy.com> From: Andrew Warkentin Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:01:46 -0700 Message-ID: To: tuhs@tuhs.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID-Hash: X7KMFCKLK22SWXMEEJKJEUTB6E7EH67O X-Message-ID-Hash: X7KMFCKLK22SWXMEEJKJEUTB6E7EH67O X-MailFrom: andreww591@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Clever code (was Re: Re: Stdin Redirect in Cu History/Alternatives? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 12/13/22, Larry McVoy 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).