Andrew Tanenbaum Announces MINIXcon (minix3.org) 104
LichtSpektren writes: Andrew Tanenbaum, author of MINIX, writes: 'MINIX has been around now for about 30 years so it is (finally) time for the MINIXers to have a conference to get together, just as Linuxers and BSDers have been doing for a long time. The idea is to exchange ideas and experiences among MINIX 3 developers and users as well as discussing possible paths forward now that the ERC funding is over. Future developments will now be done like in any other volunteer-based open-source project. Increasing community involvement is a key issue here. Attend or give a presentation.' The con will be held on 1 February 2016 at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
I wish the seven of them a good time (Score:4, Funny)
"The idea is to exchange ideas and experiences among MINIX 3 developers and users..."
I wish all seven of them have a good time exchanging ideas and experiences.
Perhaps they could use email.
You know.
Like through a linux server.
Because.
That's how it works.
"If the OSI developers are emailing each other, it's over TCP/IP" -- Steven Belovin, before you were born
"If the Minix developers[sic] are emailing each other, it's on Linux systems" -- me
Ehud
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be a dick.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be curious to know how many people are even using MINIX.
I still have Tanenbaum's operating systems book on my shelf, but once Linux came along I have no idea if anybody is using it for much.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
MINIX is obsolete.
Re: (Score:1)
Minix will be obsolete just after the need to learn about operating systems is obsolete.
Obsolete (Score:5, Insightful)
MINIX is obsolete.
Even if assuming that's the case: okay, so what? Things that are considered 'obsolete' are used in many places, every day, doing their thing. Often better than if done by a modern 'equivalent'.
From what I've read, MINIX has some unique features that mainstream OS'es don't have. For that reason alone there's a place for it. And it's useful as a way to learn the inner workings of an OS. Not as big and complex as an OS that supports everything under the sun.
Still not good enough hey? How about as a research vehicle? To try some new concepts that haven't been tried elsewhere. Do things that have been done elsewhere just a little different, and see how that works. Or just for the fun of it.
Especially us /. users should applaud and appreciate projects like this. There used to be a time when it seemed as if every company were working on some OS or programming language of their own. When hobbyists where beating bare metal of their PC's in assembly, even up to a GUI or 3D games. These days... not so much. Most software news these days is new releases of existing software. New versions of existing operating systems. Some new way to make existing software X work with existing software Y. Projects like MINIX that are still developed (even if slowly) are few and far between.
Last but not least: if you're not interested: fine, that's OKAY. But no reason to mock an interesting project simply because it's not your cup of tea.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL ... me I'm giving the GP the benefit of the doubt of making a really good reference [wikipedia.org].
Because Tanenbaum once said the same thing about Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
And reply I did, with complete abandon, and no thought for good taste and netiquette. Apologies to ast, and thanks to John Nall for a friendy "that's not how it's done"-letter. I over-reacted, and am now composing a (much less acerbic) personal letter to ast. Hope nobody was turned away from linux due to it being (a) possibly obsolete (I still think that's not the case, although some of the criticisms are valid) and (b) written by a hothead :-)
Linus "my first, and hopefully last flamefest" Torvalds
Re: (Score:3)
To the point though, even if MINIX is obsolete, obsolesecence could simply be that the features needed are not implemented. Granted, the entire framework could be poor to the point that adding on components does not help, but if the framework is solid then even something obsolete might be able to develop
Re: (Score:2)
..
https://groups.google.com/foru... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I must have read that thread a half dozen times over the many years since. I just reread a goodly portion of it and, wow... Look at the names of the people. I'm not sure what words apply and my word-smithing is not up to the task. How about? "That is a serious collection of legends." I simply can't think of anything better to describe it without seeming to gush.
'Tis an awesome read and thanks for the reminder of that piece of history. AST also has some stuff up at his site that you can read. He went on to r
Re:I wish the seven of them a good time (Score:4, Informative)
MINIX is obsolete.
Yeah, no kidding, that's why they made a new version. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
As an apology, I friended him. I have no idea if the apology is accepted or not.
Minix then & now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MINIX is obsolete.
Yeah, no kidding, that's why they made a new version. Try to keep up.
Taking a page from OS/2 Warp?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Minix is an amazing learning OS.
Back in university, we were required to write a simple scheduler, a virtual memory (paging to disk) subsystem, and a FAT16 filesystem on top of a stripped down Minix kernel.
While that would technically be possible with Linux as well, the reality is that the Linux kernel base is so amazingly huge that a third year university student with no kernel experience has little hope of doing such a set of projects in a single quarter long course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Minix the book came out in 1987. The Internet was developed in 1973, was connecting universities and research centers and companies as the NSFnet in 1985.
1985 and 1973 are both before 1987 so no, there WAS TOO an Internet when Minix came out.
Secondly Linux did NOT come out from Minix. Both Andrew Tenenbaum and Linus Torvalds said that.
I've giving you ZERO out of two possible points for telling the truth and not being a stupid troll.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Linus Benedick Torvalds disagrees with you.
Notes for linux release 0.01
This is a free minix-like kernel for i386(+) based AT-machines. ... Thus you currently need minix to bootstrap the system. ...
The linux kernel has been made under minix, and it was my original idea
to make it binary compatible with minix. ... As already mentioned, the linux FS is the same as in minix. This makes
crosscompiling from minix easy, and means you can mount a linux
partition from minix
Re: (Score:2)
I started studying in 1987. ... that was 1983.
And we already had 'internet' then. Not sure what all is called 'internet' though. Some friends of mine claim you could call it internet after we had DNS
Well, there is no real connection between linux and minix, it is said Tannenbaum once had said about Linux he had 'failed the OS class' in the literal sense (Linus was not taking classes from Tannenbaum).
Friends of mine installed Minix on Atari STs and one had it on an 68k Mac ... I was not much impressed.
But la
Re: (Score:2)
I had to look up the History of the Internet [wikipedia.org] to find that out - evidently the term "internet" was in use since 1974 to describe interconnected networks, but it wasn't THE Internet until NSFNET connected the major NSF supercomputer centers in 1988.
Interestingly, Wikipedia cites Tanenbaum's Computer Networks for this information. :)
The Internet came gradually to civilians. When I was an Amiga developer circa 1987, the primary way we communicated with Commodore was via CompuServe. It was, actually, one of the things I liked about them. Unlike most major manufacturers, which either tend to ignore you or be outright hostile, Commodore's principal developers were friendly, attentive, and actually incorporated your advice sometimes. But that's secondary. They also had true Internet email addresses and Commodore was routing between its own
Re: (Score:2)
no "internet" as we think of it today; not for individual users.
In other words, yes it had INSTITUTIONAL users, not people dialing in from their homes.
Secondly, BZZZT! WRONG!
I think I know which one of us is thea stupid troll -- his nick is gavron.
Re: (Score:2)
LoL! I'm no troll. Allow me to expound.
The Internet has been alive and well. I don't know what YOU think of it TODAY so that's not really a definition.
It was working just great for those of us in universities, at government labs, at companies supporting the Internet, etc.
I'm sorry you weren't aware of it, and some confusion about internet=html hadn't occurred yet either. gopher was pretty good! (for its time)
As for #2... BOTH the creator of Minix AND the creator of Linux have both stated quite clearly (
Re: (Score:2)
This is Minix 3.
It is a new microkernel OS that explores some interesting ideas in security and reliability. It is not the Minix you have in your book.
From www.minix3.org
What Is MINIX 3?
MINIX 3 is a free, open-source, operating system designed to be highly reliable, flexible, and secure. It is based on a tiny microkernel running in kernel mode with the rest of the operating system running as a number of isolated, protected, processes in user mode. It runs on x86 and ARM CPUs, is compatible with NetBSD, and
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, I didn't know they were porting NetBSD's pkgsrc. That's good stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is now FOSS "BSD" I believe so the source is available on-line. http://git.minix3.org/index.cg... [minix3.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I have some Tanenbaum books as well. They're among the best-written, most understandable tech books I've got.
If he had made Minix a little more open back when Linus Torvalds was still in school, OS history might have been completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Minix 3 is really interesting. (Score:3)
I hope that Minix 3 gets more interest. When I have time I really want to see if I can use it for NAS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Announcement (Score:3)
Would it really have been so hard to link to the announcement in the summary:
http://www.minix3.org/conferen... [minix3.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"..since MINIX was the only truly free and open OS at the time"
Exactly wrong. It was proprietary, (although source was in the book). About a $100, roughly to buy it on floppies.
If it HAD been free and open, there would have been no Linux, we'd all
be using MINIX. Linus wanted to make a free program based on his study of Tanenbaum's book. So he wrote one.
Re: (Score:2)
If it HAD been free and open, there would have been no Linux, we'd all be using MINIX.
Doubtful.
Tanenbaum was against unfettered development of Minix. It had an explicit purpose; it was designed as a teaching tool, no more, no less. Bug fixes were welcome, features were generally not. It wasn't until Minix 3 that he allowed it to expand.
Now, someone might have forked it and created something that fits into Linux's niche, but it wouldn't have been Minix.
Looking backward to it! (Score:1)
I'm especially looking forward to the TARDIS ride back to 1989 when this CON might have mattered. I hear it's bigger on the inside.
MINIX.com (Score:2)
I went to MINIX.com, and found I could get an email address - that works right in my browser! - for only 35 dollars a year.
Oh, minix CON.
Nevermind
Not your father's Minix. (Score:1)
Minix 3 is not the same as the Minix you might still have on floppies or dead trees. Different basis, different goals. Yes, still a microkernel, but meant to be used in production and not (just) as a teaching aid. Check it out at minix3.org before disparaging :).
Argument's silver anniversary (Score:1)
In a way you've gotta admire a guy who will continue to try to wage an argument that he clearly lost 23 years ago [wikipedia.org] (nearly a quarter of a century). That's some serious dedication!
Now he might actually have had a point or two, but still...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can just see how Tannenbaum won the argument by looking at how Minix installations outnumber Linux ones.
Tannenbaum may think he won. You may think Tannenbaum won. The world, apparently, thinks differently.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people see that argument being over which kernel design is better.
The world didn't pick Linux because it was a better design, they picked it because it was free and could do more than any other free OS.
Linus's brilliance was in the way he organized the project and guided development. It meant a LOT of ports and a lot of drivers early on, which meant "easy to deploy." The kernel was a mess at the time. Some would say it's still a mess, since it constantly has to be revised to accommodate new features. T
Re: (Score:1)
If the court of popularity gets to decide truth, then artists like Brittney Spears represent the pinnacle of music composition.
After all, just look at all the air time she gets compared to people like John Cage, who in the court of musical popularity are obviously doing it wrong. And don't let me get started on Tom Waits, who despite being a major influence on just about every musician on the west coast is irrelevant when one compares radio air time.
Perhaps popularity isn't the right measure of correctness
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Just because he can do a split and punch you in the balls, does that really make him such a great musician?
Re: (Score:2)
More desktop users are using Windows 10 than use Linux - of any kernel number. By that logic, Windows must be better. I'm not sure I agree. I use Linux but that's because it's handy and has a huge ecosystem. I do have MINIX in a VM but, honestly, I've not found a real use for it, for me. I do think the idea, the microkernel, is sound and that it should make a more secure and stable system. There's a loss in speed but we've pretty speedy hardware now. He may win that argument in numbers still. Doubtful but,
Re: (Score:2)
"More desktop users are using Windows 10 than use Linux - of any kernel number. By that logic, Windows must be better."
Apples to oranges. Windows 10 is an OS. Linux is a kernel. If you mean GNU/Linux, then yes desktop Windows, by that logic, is the better desktop OS (can play latest and greatest games, easier to install, better hardware support, etc). You can include Android and various other systems (embedded or otherewise) that use the Linux kernel, then you have an installed base larger than all Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Those are not desktops. Which is why I quantified it. If the number in use for a task is a mark of a better product than grains of sand would be better than food. The Ford Focus would be better than a BMW. Android 4.2 would be better than 5.0. PHB would be better than competent people.
There are lots of arguments to be made that say Linux is better - I might even agree with them. But using the number of them in use as a metric is not a very good deterministic approach for quality. There are more ants than th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...can't be wrong. (I'd forgotten that adage.)
I like Linux. I use it. I'm using Lubuntu at the moment but that changes kind of often. Hmm... I have been playing with BSD via a virtual machine lately. I don't know a whole lot about the kernel. I wonder if it's more or less monolithic. Of course, well, the BDSs don't really have a single kernel, I don't believe. I think they're all based on the same kernel from back in the mid 90s.
Wikipedia classifies it (the BSD) as a monolithic kernel. When reading about th
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Thanks! The rump server and the protocol makes it look like it might be trivially easy (comparatively speaking) to speak with devices - not just as a server. Some of the BSDs have great documentation. I don't have a NetBSD VM to spin up but I have the resources to do it. I can just connect to a machine at home and spin it up there. Strange, I know, but that's the situation.
I am definitely going to have to give that a spin. I don't have a lot of time today but I can get a VM spun up, tested, and make
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I say he "lost" in the court of public opinion, because the rough gist of his initial argument was that Linux was going nowhere due to its Kernel design, and Linux and Minix had very different trajectories than this argument would have predicted. How much of that was due to kernel design is debatable, but the argument that Linux was "obsolete" 23 years ago certainly looks silly now.
If one digs into the details of the debate, not only were a lot of Tannebaum's detailed points quite correct, but Linus w
MINIX 3 Developers? (Score:2)
Please don't be offended, but...
Is that a version number or a head count?
MinixCon (Score:3, Insightful)
Frosty (Score:2)
Tanenbaum: Do you think I should hire a limo?
Mrs Tanenbaum: To shuttle them to the conference, dear?
Tanenbaum: No, to hold it in.
Wat? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
A little late? (Score:2)
Dear Andy, you kept Minix to yourself for decades. What happened to make you change your mind, 30 years late?
Re: (Score:1)
Minix 3 has been freely available now for almost a decade.
Hey Andrew, how about a RaspPi port? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks Andrew (Score:1)
I don't have any opinion on the state of Minix today but I'm certainly grateful to Andrew for his books and the knowledge he's passed to us.