freesoftwaremagazine.com — MINIX, as originated by Andy Tanenbaum, is an operating system that has its roots and heart in academia as a tool that teaches you how kernels really should work. Recently, however, with the advent of version three of this rock solid OS, the focus is on making a production ripe embedded distribution.
Mar 19, 2007 View in Crawl 4
dschepMar 19, 2007
Mmmm.. TWM
xaxisxMar 20, 2007
For those who are curious, you can read the famous Linus Torvolds - Andy Tanenbaum debate here: <a class="user" href="http://people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html">http://people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html</a> .
zookooMar 20, 2007
There may not be any widespread desktop OS's using microkernels, but there is at least one particularly popular embedded microkernel, namely QNX.In embedded & real time systems, ultimate performance is not the goal, but reliability and determinism is. This makes kernels such as QNX very attractive with its simplified microkernel and driver model.
lwatcdrMar 20, 2007
Minix-3 used the BSD license so and any BSD driver could be ported to it without any GPL vs BSD legal ugliness.From a technical point of view I have no idea how hard it would be to take a BSD driver and port it to Minix-3 I hope not too hard. With that self healing capability I would love to use it on NAS box, Webserver, and or Database server. I would trade a little speed for reliability. Maybe I will try and throw together a box to run BSD and Minix and try and port a driver or two in all my free time.
kinemaMar 20, 2007
"Being POSIX compatible and being able to run X Windows makes porting of GNOME or KDE (or Window managers, in general), viable and potentially straightforward."How can the author say this with a straight face? As memory serves no version of MINIX supports virtual memory/demand paging/swap. Without this rather fundamental feature unless one has quite a large amount of physical memory (multiple gigabytes) there is no chance that anyone could get GNOME or KDE would running under MINIX.
bffoleyMar 20, 2007
Another interesting thing you may not know about Minix's creator, Andrew Tanenbaum, is that he's the creator/maintainer of www.electoral-vote.comIf you havent gone there before, be sure to check it out when the 2008 election gets closer. It's a pretty cool site.
philodoxMar 20, 2007
I saw Tanenbaum speak at the University of Waterloo and it was a pretty neat experience. He raises a pretty valid point that because of the size of the Linux and Windows kernel (millions of lines) not one person can understand how each works in its entirety. Whereas the Minix kernel is something like 4000 lines, and a decent OS programmer could have a handle on it in a day or so.
grumpyrainMar 20, 2007
> Wouldn't have been 'Operating Systems Design and Implementation', would it?I think our one was called Operating Systems and Networks. It was basically a 3 credit point subject split between the two. That was one of the text books though. I remember it being the most challenging and interesting subjects I did. The workload from those 3 credit points far exceeded the other 8 credit points I did that semester which limited the amount I could really apply myself without neglecting the other units. I think they changed it after I graduated to be two separate units, but even 6 credit points for those two units is too low IMO.
jmaynardgMar 20, 2007
GNU HURD is a microkernel too. Though Mach 2.5 is pretty tiny in comparison to BSD or Linux, and it does split off many device drivers and services out of supervisor mode.
pablassoMar 21, 2007
MINIX1 was just a educational tool, it wasn't intended for production, thats why the lack of virtual memory. MINX 3 has just started, and virtual memory is on the checklist, GNOME and KDE WILL be ported
mydaveAug 5, 2008
Minix doesn't require the GNU operating system to operate. Minix has its own operating system.<a class="user" href="http://www.procleaner.net">http://www.procleaner.net</a><a class="user" href="http://www.sooslic.com">http://www.sooslic.com</a>
digglesbearJan 8, 2009
The curious myth is "you have a clue what you are talking about"OSX does not use Mach.Don't believe me, go research it, and as Amit Singh is a far more reliable source than some idiot of Digg, I'll trust him - he knows what he's talking about.<a class="user" href="http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html">http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html</a>