[1] https://ironclad.nongnu.org/
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 19:38:31 +0200, Fernando Oleo / Irvise wrote:
[1] https://ironclad.nongnu.org/
It’s not microkernel-based, is it?
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 19:38:31 +0200, Fernando Oleo / Irvise wrote:
[1] https://ironclad.nongnu.org/
It’s not microkernel-based, is it?
[1] https://ironclad.nongnu.org/
It’s not microkernel-based, is it?
On 10/4/24 00:12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 19:38:31 +0200, Fernando Oleo / Irvise wrote:
[1] https://ironclad.nongnu.org/
It’s not microkernel-based, is it?
AFAIK, no. It is POSIX-based/like.
Isn't it true that monolithic kernels become more attractive when Cs
problens are removed with micro kernels swapping problems for new
problems?
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:52:12 -0000 (UTC), Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Isn't it true that monolithic kernels become more attractive when Cs
problens are removed with micro kernels swapping problems for new
problems?
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the contrary.
L4 have years of sticking a middle finger up at that.
On 04/10/2024 21:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to
their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the
contrary.
L4 have years of sticking a middle finger up at that.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 23:19:09 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
On 04/10/2024 21:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to
their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the
contrary.
L4 have years of sticking a middle finger up at that.
L4 is supposedly being used as the basis of the GNU Hurd kernel.
Development of that started around the same time as Linux. There are grown adults walking the Earth right now who weren’t even born at that time,
many of them now using Linux for production work, and Hurd still isn’t ready for prime time.
Le 04/10/2024 à 22:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:52:12 -0000 (UTC), Kevin Chadwick wrote:Any evidence of this assertion ?
Isn't it true that monolithic kernels become more attractive when Cs
problens are removed with micro kernels swapping problems for new
problems?
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to their
idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the contrary.
You should try QNX.
My experience with QNX shows that it is far more stable than monolithic kernels since buggy drivers can't cause the kernel to panic.
Also, you don't have to recompile the kernel each time a driver needs to
be recompiled.
I have many other arguments against monolithic kernels.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:52:12 -0000 (UTC), Kevin Chadwick wrote:Any evidence of this assertion ?
Isn't it true that monolithic kernels become more attractive when Cs
problens are removed with micro kernels swapping problems for new
problems?
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the contrary.
Le 04/10/2024 à 22:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to
their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the
contrary.
Any evidence of this assertion ?
You should try QNX.
Also, you don't have to recompile the kernel each time a driver needs to
be recompiled.
Hurd is never going to happen, because they keep starting, stopping,
changing kernels, etc.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 18:24:39 +0200, DrPi wrote:MacOS-X is a hybrid kernel. Half way betwwen micro-kernel and monolithic kernel.
Le 04/10/2024 à 22:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to
their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the
contrary.
Any evidence of this assertion ?
Look around you, at what happened when people tried to use microkernels in real-world situations. I think Apple tried to use one in its “macOS” (née
“OS X”), and performance suffered as a result.
Sure. QNX is designed for hard real time.You should try QNX.
Was that used in any high-performance situation?
Yes, they exist but they are some sort of exception.Also, you don't have to recompile the kernel each time a driver needs to
be recompiled.
Linux has supported loadable modules for maybe 30 years now.
Le 06/10/2024 à 01:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :Oh, I forgot, Minix (which is a micro-kernel OS) is embedded is every
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 18:24:39 +0200, DrPi wrote:
Le 04/10/2024 à 22:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to
their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the
contrary.
Any evidence of this assertion ?
Look around you, at what happened when people tried to use
microkernels in
real-world situations. I think Apple tried to use one in its “macOS” (née
“OS X”), and performance suffered as a result.
Le 06/10/2024 à 01:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 18:24:39 +0200, DrPi wrote:MacOS-X is a hybrid kernel. Half way betwwen micro-kernel and monolithic kernel.
Le 04/10/2024 à 22:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
The microkernel proponents still seem to think there is a point to
their idea, even after decades of real-world experience to the
contrary.
Any evidence of this assertion ?
Look around you, at what happened when people tried to use
microkernels in
real-world situations. I think Apple tried to use one in its “macOS” (née
“OS X”), and performance suffered as a result.
Le 06/10/2024 à 01:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 18:24:39 +0200, DrPi wrote:
You should try QNX.
Was that used in any high-performance situation?
Sure. QNX is designed for hard real time.
Linux has supported loadable modules for maybe 30 years now.
Yes, they exist but they are some sort of exception.
And when time comes to debugging a kernel driver...
MacOS uses Mach which is well known for being a terrible implementation
of the microkernel, that's why it's a hybrid, same reason NT got changed
into a hybrid too.
Oh, I forgot, Minix (which is a micro-kernel OS) is embedded is every
Intel x86 processor.
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 20:46:16 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
MacOS uses Mach which is well known for being a terrible implementation
of the microkernel, that's why it's a hybrid, same reason NT got changed
into a hybrid too.
And yet they are both still outperformed by Linux on the same hardware.
On 06/10/2024 22:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 20:46:16 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
MacOS uses Mach which is well known for being a terrible
implementation of the microkernel, that's why it's a hybrid, same
reason NT got changed into a hybrid too.
And yet they are both still outperformed by Linux on the same hardware.
What's your point? I said Mach is the worst example of a microkernel,
it's been proven, decades ago.
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 00:02:34 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
On 06/10/2024 22:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 20:46:16 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
MacOS uses Mach which is well known for being a terrible
implementation of the microkernel, that's why it's a hybrid, same
reason NT got changed into a hybrid too.
And yet they are both still outperformed by Linux on the same hardware.
What's your point? I said Mach is the worst example of a microkernel,
it's been proven, decades ago.
So where is there a better one? It’s long been established that
microkernel performance is terrible, and the theoretical reliability advantages have failed to materialize. What reason is there left to use
them? None.
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
I already said, L4. But you don't want to listen you just want to slag
off something you don't or won't understand and bang on about Linux,
which was always meant to be a server OS, not a desktop one.
On 07/10/2024 00:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
Why are you wanging on about this on an Ada group? Try this on alt.os.development.
On 07/10/2024 09:22, Luke A. Guest wrote:
On 07/10/2024 00:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
Why are you wanging on about this on an Ada group? Try this on
alt.os.development.
He is just trolling!
Oh, I forgot, Minix (which is a micro-kernel OS) is embedded is every
Intel x86 processor.
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:21:26 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
On 07/10/2024 00:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
I already said, L4.
The one that Hurd has been trying to use, without success.
Has anybody else made production use of it?
On 07/10/2024 00:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up.
I already said, L4.
On 07/10/2024 21:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:21:26 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote:
On 07/10/2024 00:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up. >>>I already said, L4.
The one that Hurd has been trying to use, without success.
Has anybody else made production use of it?
I already said in another message, about L3.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 64:55:43 |
| Calls: | 8,355 |
| Calls today: | 15 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,893,946 |
| Posted today: | 1 |