El miércoles, 29 de enero de 1992, 8:12:50 (UTC-4), ast escribió:

I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.

As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.

The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.

While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long.

MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.

Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s, one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 29, 1992 at 5:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, ast wrote:

I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.

As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.

The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.

While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long.

MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.

Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s, one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.

Hi All,


it is my honor to read this mail theard. This is the history. This is Awarsome.

Thanks,
Sumesh KS.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Regards from 2017!
How absolutely silly and ignorant this looks 26 years in the future.
Although, it goes to show that even 26 years later the opinions of highly-educated CNN-loving "professors" can be less than worthless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Regards from 2017!
How absolutely silly and ignorant this looks 26 years in the future.
Although, it goes to show that even 26 years ago the opinions of highly-educated CNN-loving "professors" were worthless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Regards from 2017!
How absolutely silly and ignorant this looks 25 years in the future.
Although, it goes to show that even 25 years ago the opinions of highly-educated CNN-loving "professors" were worthless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, rhuetube@gmail.com wrote:

Regards from 2017!
How absolutely silly and ignorant this looks 26 years in the future. Although, it goes to show that even 26 years later the opinions of highly-educated CNN-loving "professors" can be less than worthless.

But save us from the idiots who think it's okay to vandalize a historic
thread, and spews the same message three times because he thinks it's not working.

This vandalizing has been going on for almost 15 years, nothing like being
so "smart" as to do what others have been doing for those 15 years. Maybe
the first time it was amusing, but all this time later, it's not.

Michael

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 1:48:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, rhuetube@gmail.com wrote:

Regards from 2017!
How absolutely silly and ignorant this looks 26 years in the future. Although, it goes to show that even 26 years later the opinions of highly-educated CNN-loving "professors" can be less than worthless.

But save us from the idiots who think it's okay to vandalize a historic thread, and spews the same message three times because he thinks it's not working.

This vandalizing has been going on for almost 15 years, nothing like being
so "smart" as to do what others have been doing for those 15 years. Maybe the first time it was amusing, but all this time later, it's not.

Michael

Never said I was smart, bro. So many years of hindsight disqualify that. I deleted because I needed to edit my post but saw no 'edit' function. Maybe there is one but I'm too foolish to see it, oh well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El miércoles, 29 de enero de 1992, 7:12:50 (UTC-5), ast escribió:

I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.

As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.

The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.

While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long.

MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.

Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s, one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.

Hi Linux

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 29, 1992 at 7:12:50 AM UTC-5, ast wrote:

I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.

As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.

The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.

While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long.

MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.

Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s, one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.

Aged like fine wine

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

linux master race 2017

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:22:07 PM UTC+2, bara...@gmail.com wrote:

linux master race 2017

This means MINIX won? http://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

VOCES SAO FODAS

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Linux vs. Minix.

Some very fine people on both sides.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Personally, I'm still banking on CP/M

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Personally, I'm still banking on CP\M

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Very very fine argument , microkernels couldnt win the war as monolithic kernel like Linux reign supreme.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

ha

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

your mom is gay and your dad is lesbian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Linux is love... Linux is life..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Linux is love.. Linux is life..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I don't know about you guys, but I think when OS/2 really takes off, it will be unstoppable. New Technology.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

ast, I come from the future. Believe me, you're completely wrong!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

And your family tree is lgbt

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 29, 1992 at 7:12:50 AM UTC-5, ast wrote:

I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.

As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.

The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.

While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long.

MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.

Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s, one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.

yeah...
about that?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

<ibeechu@gmail.com> wrote:

Personally, I'm still banking on CP/M

One of these days…

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mark.stobie@gmail.com writes:

ha

So who had the last laugh really? ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

sleeperneon2.0@gmail.com writes:

I don't know about you guys, but I think when OS/2 really takes off, it will be unstoppable. New Technology.

Hey you never know hey.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This was posted in 1992. However, Google didn't exist then. How-come?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 15:07:10 UTC+5:30, Martijn van Buul wrote:

* Saptarshi Roy:

This was posted in 1992. However, Google didn't exist then. How-come?

Google didn't invent the internet, and google didn't invent usenet
newsgroups like the one you're posting to.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Hi Martijn!

Thank for posting your response. I apologise, but I should have rephrased my question properly.

This topic is posted to Google Groups with the date bearing 1992, however, Google Groups was created much later.

This prompted the question.

Thank you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

* Saptarshi Roy:

This was posted in 1992. However, Google didn't exist then. How-come?

Google didn't invent the internet, and google didn't invent usenet
newsgroups like the one you're posting to.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

* Saptarshi Roy:

On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 15:07:10 UTC+5:30, Martijn van Buul wrote:

* Saptarshi Roy:

This was posted in 1992. However, Google didn't exist then. How-come?

Google didn't invent the internet, and google didn't invent usenet
newsgroups like the one you're posting to.

This topic is posted to Google Groups

Ah, but it is *not* posted to Google Groups. I'm not posting to Google
Groups either, I haven't touched Google Groups with a 10-foot pole for
a while.

with the date bearing 1992, however, Google Groups was created much later.

That's because it was posted to the usenet newsgroup comp.os.minix. At
some point, people started archiving these newsgroups, and by a series of buy-outs Google aquired this archive. They slapped their own branding on it, and pretend that it is a Google thing. It's not.

What you're looking at is an archive Google is making from an external source. That source (usenet) existed long before Google came to be. To draw an
analogy: The US Library of Congress holds a huge archive of documents
(be it books, sound recording, pictures or movies). A significant portion
of these works existed before the Library of Congress was founded, and they didn't write the majority of those works. That's ok, because they're not claiming they did.

Google is the library here. They maintain a massive historical archive of articles (let's call it Usenet). The difference is that they *do* pretend
they wrote it - or at least instigated it, whereas the Library of Congress doesn't claim that the copy of the Gutenberg bible they old is written by or envisioned by the US president.

At least, not yet.

--
Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dear Martijn

Thank you for your insightful response, I appreciate it. Now I've come to understood how this happened.

Regards.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 9:17:47 AM UTC+1, Martijn van Buul wrote:

* Saptarshi Roy:

On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 15:07:10 UTC+5:30, Martijn van Buul wrote:

* Saptarshi Roy:

This was posted in 1992. However, Google didn't exist then. How-come?

Google didn't invent the internet, and google didn't invent usenet
newsgroups like the one you're posting to.

This topic is posted to Google Groups

Ah, but it is *not* posted to Google Groups. I'm not posting to Google
Groups either, I haven't touched Google Groups with a 10-foot pole for
a while.

with the date bearing 1992, however, Google Groups was created much later.

That's because it was posted to the usenet newsgroup comp.os.minix. At
some point, people started archiving these newsgroups, and by a series of buy-outs Google aquired this archive. They slapped their own branding on it, and pretend that it is a Google thing. It's not.

What you're looking at is an archive Google is making from an external source.
That source (usenet) existed long before Google came to be. To draw an analogy: The US Library of Congress holds a huge archive of documents
(be it books, sound recording, pictures or movies). A significant portion
of these works existed before the Library of Congress was founded, and they didn't write the majority of those works. That's ok, because they're not claiming they did.

Google is the library here. They maintain a massive historical archive of articles (let's call it Usenet). The difference is that they *do* pretend they wrote it - or at least instigated it, whereas the Library of Congress doesn't claim that the copy of the Gutenberg bible they old is written by or envisioned by the US president.

At least, not yet.

--
Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org

As if AST and LT have Google accounts. Right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

<ibeechu@gmail.com> wrote:

Personally, I'm still banking on CP/M

One of these days?

Lmao you are all wrong I will write my own kernel called DINIX after Deavmi and rule the world.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

first reply from January 1, 2019

Happy New Year!!

__sent from my Linux-droid :p

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 31 January 1992 00:15:05 UTC+1, David Feustel wrote:

meggin@epas.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) writes:

In article <1992Jan30.185728.26477feustel@netcom.COM> feustel@netcom.COM (David Feustel) writes:

ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:

I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is >>>a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not >>>get a high grade for such a design :-)

That's ok. Einstein got lousy grades in math and physics.

And Dan Quayle got low grades in political science. I think that there
are more Dan Quayles than Einsteins out there... ;-)

But the Existence of Linux suggests that we may have more of an
Einstein than a Quail here.
--
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631 feustel@netcom.com
=== NBC News: GE's Advertising And Public Relations Agency ===

This is no more than a common misconception, by the way.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/70684/10-inventive-myths-about-einstein-debunked

G.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El miércoles, 29 de enero de 1992, 10:12:50 (UTC-2), ast escribió:

I was in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, so I haven't commented much on
LINUX (not that I would have said much had I been around), but for what
it is worth, I have a couple of comments now.

As most of you know, for me MINIX is a hobby, something that I do in the evening when I get bored writing books and there are no major wars, revolutions, or senate hearings being televised live on CNN. My real
job is a professor and researcher in the area of operating systems.

As a result of my occupation, I think I know a bit about where operating
are going in the next decade or so. Two aspects stand out:

1. MICROKERNEL VS MONOLITHIC SYSTEM
Most older operating systems are monolithic, that is, the whole operating
system is a single a.out file that runs in 'kernel mode.' This binary
contains the process management, memory management, file system and the
rest. Examples of such systems are UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, MVS, OS/360,
MULTICS, and many more.

The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS
runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate
by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing,
interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O.
Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and the
not-yet-released Windows/NT.

While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the
two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design
operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won.
The only real argument for monolithic systems was performance, and there
is now enough evidence showing that microkernel systems can be just as
fast as monolithic systems (e.g., Rick Rashid has published papers comparing
Mach 3.0 to monolithic systems) that it is now all over but the shoutin`.

MINIX is a microkernel-based system. The file system and memory management
are separate processes, running outside the kernel. The I/O drivers are
also separate processes (in the kernel, but only because the brain-dead
nature of the Intel CPUs makes that difficult to do otherwise). LINUX is
a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s.
That is like taking an existing, working C program and rewriting it in
BASIC. To me, writing a monolithic system in 1991 is a truly poor idea.

2. PORTABILITY
Once upon a time there was the 4004 CPU. When it grew up it became an
8008. Then it underwent plastic surgery and became the 8080. It begat
the 8086, which begat the 8088, which begat the 80286, which begat the
80386, which begat the 80486, and so on unto the N-th generation. In
the meantime, RISC chips happened, and some of them are running at over
100 MIPS. Speeds of 200 MIPS and more are likely in the coming years.
These things are not going to suddenly vanish. What is going to happen
is that they will gradually take over from the 80x86 line. They will
run old MS-DOS programs by interpreting the 80386 in software. (I even
wrote my own IBM PC simulator in C, which you can get by FTP from
ftp.cs.vu.nl = 192.31.231.42 in dir minix/simulator.) I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long.

MINIX was designed to be reasonably portable, and has been ported from the
Intel line to the 680x0 (Atari, Amiga, Macintosh), SPARC, and NS32016.
LINUX is tied fairly closely to the 80x86. Not the way to go.

Don`t get me wrong, I am not unhappy with LINUX. It will get all the people who want to turn MINIX in BSD UNIX off my back. But in all honesty, I would suggest that people who want a **MODERN** "free" OS look around for a microkernel-based, portable OS, like maybe GNU or something like that.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)

P.S. Just as a random aside, Amoeba has a UNIX emulator (running in user space), but it is far from complete. If there are any people who would
like to work on that, please let me know. To run Amoeba you need a few 386s, one of which needs 16M, and all of which need the WD Ethernet card.

DUDE LINUX IS THE BEST

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Same here. What I would do to relive 05-12. Those posters are so lucky....

You are right though. No matter how unfortunate it may be that we can never return we must window into the past and move into the future.

BTW... Greetings from 2019. Donald Trump will soon be your president and Trannies will be seen as national heros.

😥

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nope! But I'm gonna one up him by answering a 14 year old post on a 27 year old thread!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I agree with Andy whom I greatly admire and have read his books on networks and operating systems and computer architecture, and I would like to add something; Beyond that the post is from 1992 today, 2019, I have seen things that I think should evolve,
and one of them is the operating system development technology. A week ago I downloaded the GNU Linux code and I found (not surprisingly) that it is fully programmed in C. Beyond that Linux is excellent and has distributions for all tastes, it should
have already evolved to C ++, that is to say a language Object oriented
Today it is well known that any system developed with Object technology is easier to program and maintain. When I think of developing an operating system, I think of objects such as "Microprocessor", "Memory", "Network Card", "Output Device", "Printer", "
Hard Disk", etc. etc.
Using a super powerful language like C ++, and also incorporating concepts of object-oriented design with patterns, I think Linux would advance faster, since being easier to understand and scale, more programmers around the world would join the
development of Linux .

regards

Gerardo Agüero
Systems analyst
(gerardox.ag@gmail.com)

Argentina country

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I agree with Andy (whom I admire a lot and have read his books on networks and operating systems and computer architecture) on the issue of portability, although today Linux is not at all obsolete, quite the opposite. However I would like to add
something; Beyond that the post is from 1992 today, 2019, I have seen things that I think should evolve, and one of them is the operating system development technology.
A week ago I downloaded the GNU Linux code and I found (not surprisingly) that it is fully programmed in C. Beyond that Linux is excellent and has distributions for all tastes, it should have already evolved to C ++, that is to say a language Object
oriented
Today it is well known that any system developed with Object technology is easier to program and maintain. When I think of developing an operating system, I think of objects such as "Microprocessor", "Memory", "Network Card", "Output Device", "Printer", "
Hard Disk", etc. etc.
Using a super powerful language like C ++, and also incorporating concepts of object-oriented design with patterns, I think Linux would advance faster, since being easier to understand and scale, more programmers around the world would join the
development of Linux .

regards

Gerardo Agüero
Systems analyst

Argentina country

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A week ago I downloaded the GNU Linux code and I found (not
surprisingly) that it is fully programmed in C. Beyond that Linux is excellent and has distributions for all tastes, it should have already evolved to C ++, that is to say a language Object oriented
Today it is well known that any system developed with Object
technology is easier to program and maintain. When I think of
developing an operating system, I think of objects such as
"Microprocessor", "Memory", "Network Card", "Output Device",
"Printer", "Hard Disk", etc. etc.

You are mixing two things here. Programming Paradigm and Programming
language. C can very well be used for Object Oriented Programming.

And how did you come to the conclusion that OO paradigm is better. Today
there are many other philosophies in use. But that doesn't make LINUX
obsolete.

Regards,
--
Pankaj Jangid

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I believed in minix over linux. I was posting about minix in 1994 and 1995 over in comp.sys.tandy and
comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit, , recommending 1.7.0 minix for use on old (by then) Tandy 1000 PC's. Minix hides in the kernels of chips, doing its thing perfectly. Linux gets the glory. Can't believe this thread goes on but as an historical reminder of minix
and how linux is forever indebted to minix? I'm really really glad it does.

--
this is where a .sig thing used to go right? I forget
Kenneth Udut

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Prof. Tannenbaum's arguments have has aged like milk.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

i use arch btw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Em sábado, 8 de maio de 2021 às 14:26:35 UTC-3, jakaco escreveu:

i use arch btw

finally some decent taste in this thread.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El sábado, 8 de mayo de 2021 a las 19:26:35 UTC+2, jakaco escribió:

i use arch btw

i use gentoo btw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/5/21 6:40, Ron Bali wrote:

Prof. Tannenbaum's arguments have has aged like milk.

Linux its fine

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El sábado, 8 de mayo de 2021 a la(s) 12:26:35 p. m. UTC-5, jakaco escribió:

i use arch btw

GODpenSUSE > Archzzzzz

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Em sexta-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2017 às 21:51:06 UTC-2, professorw...@gmail.com escreveu:

nem acredito que posso mandar email aqui para o Flame mais importante do mundo da tecnologia =) parabéns AST e LBT por proporcionar isso de maneira espetacular, quase 25 anos depois.

Sim, nem acreditei quando vi de primeira, seja lá quem cuida disso manteve aberto, agora, não sei se você quis dizer "frame" em vez de "flame" mas ok. O mais interessante é ver como "LINUX is obsolete" provou-se ser uma afirmação ousada e falsa.

Yes, I didn't believe when i first saw it, whoever takes care of this kept it open, now, I don't know if you wanted to say "frame" instead of "flame" but ok. The most interesting thing is to see how "LINUX is obsolete" has proven to be a bold and false
statement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

SneedOS is the future

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

happy 30 years to this conversation

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:13:12 AM UTC+4, Souliousery wrote:

happy 30 years to this conversation

:)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:59:56 PM UTC-4, Elmo wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:13:12 AM UTC+4, Souliousery wrote:

happy 30 years to this conversation

:)

wow this thread aged funnily

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:59:56 PM UTC-4, Elmo wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:13:12 AM UTC+4, Souliousery wrote:

happy 30 years to this conversation

:)

this thread is kind of sussy baka

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:37:14 PM UTC-4, Steve Doe wrote:

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:59:56 PM UTC-4, Elmo wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:13:12 AM UTC+4, Souliousery wrote:

happy 30 years to this conversation

:)

wow this thread aged funnily

Now that we have steamOS, maybe the kernel will actually be more marketshare than windows.
And I think that asahi linux proves that portability has been solved. Even an M1 can run linux.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You VILL use ze microkernel
Und you VILL be happy!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 6:42:38 PM UTC+3, steven sneedberg wrote:

You VILL use ze microkernel
Und you VILL be happy!

thanks for showing us how the average IQ dropped through the years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

1992: I use MINIX, btw
2022: I use Arch, btw

1992 GNU Hurd: vaporware
2022 GNU Hurd: vaporware

oh boy. historic!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 31, 1992 at 12:33:23 PM UTC+2, Linus Benedict Torvalds wrote:

In article <12...@star.cs.vu.nl> a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:

The limitations of MINIX relate at least partly to my being a professor:
An explicit design goal was to make it run on cheap hardware so students >could afford it.

All right: a real technical point, and one that made some of my comments inexcusable. But at the same time you shoot yourself in the foot a bit:
now you admit that some of the errors of minix were that it was too
portable: including machines that weren't really designed to run unix.
That assumption lead to the fact that minix now cannot easily be
extended to have things like paging, even for machines that would
support it. Yes, minix is portable, but you can rewrite that as
"doesn't use any features", and still be right.

A multithreaded file system is only a performance hack.

Not true. It's a performance hack /on a microkernel/, but it's an
automatic feature when you write a monolithic kernel - one area where microkernels don't work too well (as I pointed out in my personal mail
to ast). When writing a unix the "obsolete" way, you automatically get
a multithreaded kernel: every process does it's own job, and you don't
have to make ugly things like message queues to make it work
efficiently.
Besides, there are people who would consider "only a performance hack"
vital: unless you have a cray-3, I'd guess everybody gets tired of
waiting on the computer all the time. I know I did with minix (and yes,
I do with linux too, but it's /much/ better).

I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is
a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
get a high grade for such a design :-)

Well, I probably won't get too good grades even without you: I had an argument (completely unrelated - not even pertaining to OS's) with the
person here at the university that teaches OS design. I wonder when
I'll learn :)

My point is that writing a new operating system that is closely tied to any >particular piece of hardware, especially a weird one like the Intel line, >is basically wrong.

But /my/ point is that the operating system /isn't/ tied to any
processor line: UNIX runs on most real processors in existence. Yes,
the /implementation/ is hardware-specific, but there's a HUGE
difference. You mention OS/360 and MS-DOG as examples of bad designs
as they were hardware-dependent, and I agree. But there's a big
difference between these and linux: linux API is portable (not due to my clever design, but due to the fact that I decided to go for a fairly- well-thought-out and tested OS: unix.)
If you write programs for linux today, you shouldn't have too many
surprises when you just recompile them for Hurd in the 21st century. As
has been noted (not only by me), the linux kernel is a miniscule part of
a complete system: Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed - full sources to a somewhat complete developement system is
at least 10MB compressed (and easily much, much more). And all of that
source is portable, except for this tiny kernel that you can (provably:
I did it) re-write totally from scratch in less than a year without
having /any/ prior knowledge.
In fact the /whole/ linux kernel is much smaller than the 386-dependent things in mach: i386.tar.Z for the current version of mach is well over
800kB compressed (823391 bytes according to nic.funet.fi). Admittedly,
mach is "somewhat" bigger and has more features, but that should still
tell you something.
Linus

you go linus!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The limitations of MINIX relate at least partly to my being a professor: >An explicit design goal was to make it run on cheap hardware so students >could afford it.

All right: a real technical point, and one that made some of my comments inexcusable. But at the same time you shoot yourself in the foot a bit:
now you admit that some of the errors of minix were that it was too portable: including machines that weren't really designed to run unix.
That assumption lead to the fact that minix now cannot easily be
extended to have things like paging, even for machines that would
support it. Yes, minix is portable, but you can rewrite that as
"doesn't use any features", and still be right.

A multithreaded file system is only a performance hack.

Not true. It's a performance hack /on a microkernel/, but it's an
automatic feature when you write a monolithic kernel - one area where microkernels don't work too well (as I pointed out in my personal mail
to ast). When writing a unix the "obsolete" way, you automatically get
a multithreaded kernel: every process does it's own job, and you don't
have to make ugly things like message queues to make it work
efficiently.
Besides, there are people who would consider "only a performance hack" vital: unless you have a cray-3, I'd guess everybody gets tired of
waiting on the computer all the time. I know I did with minix (and yes,
I do with linux too, but it's /much/ better).

I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is >a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not >get a high grade for such a design :-)

Well, I probably won't get too good grades even without you: I had an argument (completely unrelated - not even pertaining to OS's) with the person here at the university that teaches OS design. I wonder when
I'll learn :)

My point is that writing a new operating system that is closely tied to any
particular piece of hardware, especially a weird one like the Intel line, >is basically wrong.

But /my/ point is that the operating system /isn't/ tied to any
processor line: UNIX runs on most real processors in existence. Yes,
the /implementation/ is hardware-specific, but there's a HUGE
difference. You mention OS/360 and MS-DOG as examples of bad designs
as they were hardware-dependent, and I agree. But there's a big
difference between these and linux: linux API is portable (not due to my clever design, but due to the fact that I decided to go for a fairly- well-thought-out and tested OS: unix.)
If you write programs for linux today, you shouldn't have too many surprises when you just recompile them for Hurd in the 21st century. As
has been noted (not only by me), the linux kernel is a miniscule part of
a complete system: Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed - full sources to a somewhat complete developement system is
at least 10MB compressed (and easily much, much more). And all of that source is portable, except for this tiny kernel that you can (provably:
I did it) re-write totally from scratch in less than a year without
having /any/ prior knowledge.
In fact the /whole/ linux kernel is much smaller than the 386-dependent things in mach: i386.tar.Z for the current version of mach is well over 800kB compressed (823391 bytes according to nic.funet.fi). Admittedly,
mach is "somewhat" bigger and has more features, but that should still
tell you something.
Linus

you go linus!

convert.app

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op donderdag 23 februari 2023 om 12:26:51 UTC+1 schreef Emrah Mutlu:

27 Haziran 2022 Pazartesi tarihinde saat 17:42:38 UTC+2 itibarıyla steven sneedberg şunları yazdı:

You VILL use ze microkernel
Und you VILL be happy!

calculator.bot

What?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Great, I went here to learn a bit more about microkernels and why they were so superior. My (boring) conclusion is: both monolithic and microkernel have their pros and cons, and you can't just dismiss one of them. As usual, you have to think about what
you're looking for and see if they can prove useful in your situation, be it daily use, application development, project development.

For me, it seems embedded systems can benefit greatly from the microkernel architecture, since that architecture has prominent modularity and embedded systems have varying feature requirements, so you can easily change modules to fit your embedded system
properly and save time and memory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)