Minix3 is out

[Vogateer]

http://www.minix3.org/

Funny to see this, many many years after the Torvalds Tanenbaum ( <- spelling?) debate.

[davijordan]

It is interesting to run in a virtual machine if you do not mind waiting forever for it too install the gui.

[allix]

It has a interesting design, a bad module won't bring down the system, unlike linux where I have had to reboot .

[Vogateer]

This is interesting to me, because the idea of a microkernel is very compelling. I would like to see a proper microkernel in action. People might point to OS X as using a microkernel, but my understanding is that OS X doesn't use a proper microkernel.

[Tsuroerusu]

This is interesting to me, because the idea of a microkernel is very compelling. I would like to see a proper microkernel in action. People might point to OS X as using a microkernel, but my understanding is that OS X doesn't use a proper microkernel.

Mac OS X uses Mach, I have not heard anything about it not being a "proper" microkernel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel

[Vogateer]

I probably should have verified this guy's claims, but here's the article I read that stated OS X didn't have the "proper" microkernel:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk1.html

A little background before I quote the article. The author's intent with the article is to bust the myth that OS X is in danger of becoming obselete because of its microkernel design. A few pages in you get this:

Why is Apple Still Using the Mach Kernel After Mach failed?
The Mach kernel didn't fail; it was the Mach microkernel project that failed. Neither NeXT nor Apple ever used Mach as a microkernel.

Recall that at the time of NeXT's decision to use Mach in NeXTSTEP, Mach wasn't being developed as a microkernel with an external, operating system in userland. Rather, Mach 2.5 simply injected some new ideas on how a microkernel might work into an existing, fat kernel space.

Mach 2.5 was a fat kernel, not the problematic microkernel with horrific performance problems that Mach 3.0 turned out to be.

All the ideological criticisms lobbed back and forth between Linux creator (and fat kernel advocate) Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum (the creator of the Minix microkernel) have nearly nothing at all to do with Mach as it is used in Mac OS X.

More Nails in the Coffin
Once again, just for good measure: Mac OS X is not based on a microkernel architecture, and has never used Mach as a microkernel. Apple's XNU kernel is larger than many monolithic kernels, and does not suffer from the intractable performance failure the world associates with Mach microkernel research.

Apple has incorporated progress the Mach project made in development of Mach 3.0, but nothing changed: Mac OS X still does not have a microkernel architecture. Its XNU kernel is not implemented as a microkernel. Apple does not use Mach as a microkernel.

XNU incorporates many technologies from Mach which makes it different than traditional fat kernels such as BSD or Linux. The microkernel myth confuses the facts by associating [anything related to Mach] with [the failure of the Mach microkernel project], which sought to remove BSD from Mach. Since Mac OS X's version of Mach is full of BSD, this false association is rooted in either ignorance or FUD (or both), depending on who is reweaving the myth.

So there you have it: the Mac OS X Microkernel Myth falls apart on the simple discovery that Mac OS X has no microkernel.

The emphasis on the last sentence is mine alone.

I'm obviously no expert on these matters, but if someone has information that pertains to this, I'd like to hear about it.

[Vogateer]

Found a talk on the subject of OS X's setup:
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahr ... 03.en.html

I just downloaded the PDF, which is over my head, I'll see if downloading the talk clears anything up.