NetBSD-based system using MINIX3 microkernel announced by Andy Tanenbaum

S

Sensucht94

Guest
When most were thinking MINIX and its microkernel had never and were still nowhere going, due to all the reasons many would argue about, today I went for the first time ever to the Distrowatch's week news appendix:

- http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=current#news

and fate wanted me to bump into this:

- http://theembeddedboard.review/a-reimplementation-of-netbsd-using-a-microkernel-part-1-of-2/

I would have never thought that Tanenbaum were still playing a starring role into MINIX developing, neither that he would have eventually tried to exploit BSD.
 
Well, you know, it has such a """large"""" repository :D. By the way I was hoping to see something good ever made with any Unix-derived microkernel
 
sidetone said:
Minix had the ability to use NetBSD packages for a long time.....
.....Did Minix lack wireless support? I don't remember correctly...this is good, it will keep the Minix hybrid kernel, then use NetBSD for most or everything else.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, I updated links and title, which was somehow misleading as you pointed.

For wireless, I really do not think so, I gave a look at it once and I'm pretty sure you have to consider yourself lucky if it can fetch packages on QEMU. You can then install some binaries with 'pkgin' or all of them at once ( pkgin_all), as it is a no more than 100 software wide repository.
On the plus side, if I'm not wrong 3.x versions do not even support Xorg.
 
Sensucht94 said:
For wireless, I really do not think so, I gave a look at it once and I'm pretty sure you have to consider yourself lucky if it can fetch packages on QEMU. You can then install some binaries with 'pkgin' or all of them at once ( pkgin_all), as it is a no more than 100 software wide repository.
Click to expand...
By using QEMU, does the network on your host operating system substitute a network on an emulated operating system that don't have wireless or other network support?
 
sidetone said:
By using QEMU, does the network on your host operating system substitute a network on an emulated operating system that don't have wireless or other network support?
Click to expand...
Sorry, sidetone,it was just to mention what I actually used, as I'm more experienced with QEMU. QEMU, as other hypervisors whether emulates an Ethernet Card, or bridges your device to the Guest OS, allowing to 'directly' connect.

https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/Networking
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/QEMU/Networking

So speaking of MINIX, I simply emulated a supported wired device, probably an Intel with e1000. Pretty sure Virtual Box would easily do the same, although I think emulates fewer devices.

I do not think there's any System out there that only supports wireless, and as opposite just a few hypervisors, like bhyve, only support bridging (which might become a problem on MACs and other wifi-only laptops, when dealing with a legacy/limited Guest OS, like Minix itself) so there's no point in emulating it, although it seems someone has been discussing it on qemu: (just googled for it :D)
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-10/msg00292.html
 
sidetone said:
Minix had the ability to use NetBSD packages for a long time. Did Minix lack wireless support? I don't remember correctly.

(the links were incorrectly placed)
http://theembeddedboard.review/a-reimplementation-of-netbsd-using-a-microkernel-part-1-of-2/
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=current#news

This is good, it will keep the Minix hybrid kernel, then use NetBSD for most or everything else.
Click to expand...

Andy Tanenbaum would be frightened by the idea that his kernel is a hybrid kernel. Since his kernel has 12k of code, and the most famous "hybrid" kernel (Windows) has millions of lines of code. Linus Torvalds dismisses hybrid kernels as a marketing gimmick. In those "hybrid" systems, everything's still in the kernel, just arranged differently (sorta like a microkernel architecture internally). However; the hybrids give very little of the advantage of a microkernel.

I like watching Minix3 development, although it's a little like watching trees or grass grow. But, the microkernel's always gonna be slower, and the automatic reloading of crashed drivers via the reincarnation server doesn't always pan out either. If there's a bad driver, sometimes it's just gonna continuously crash and reload. Hence, the reloading doesn't necessarily help, unless the crashes are infrequent. When there's a bad driver, you'll probably need to fix it whether or not it's used with one type of kernel or another. But, I guess in the case of Minix you don't have your OS go down, and can continue doing something else that (doesn't use the driver). So, that's a benefit. I'd like to test drive this reimplemented NetBSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top