- cross-posted to:
- teklore@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- teklore@lemmy.ml
From comp.os.minix, January 29, 1992
Andrew Tanenbaum argues that Linux’s monolithic kernel design is outdated. Torvalds responds, and an extraordinary debate about operating-system architecture follows.
Other sources:
You must log in or register to comment.
The down votes are because of the stupid clickbait title
Yup. But it’s also the title of the Usenet thread so… ;)
I agree of not doing editorial changes to titles. But if a title is not good enough, I usually add my own context or information after it.
Linus “my first, and hopefully last flamefest” Torvalds
This signature is even funnier with the benefit of hindsight.
The debate was interesting, and AFAIK the Linux kernel of today is kind of a mix between the 2 philosophies.
Sad to see this downvoted, it is an interesting aspect of Linux history, but I think maybe the headline should have reflected that, instead of looking like a statement of fact, which it definitely is not.
A parallel attempt to Linux at designing a micro kernel by the GNU team, has completely failed to gain traction.What made Linux succeed however, is the adoption of the GNU license, this is what made the huge difference back in the day IMO. A community project that would always remain a community project.
And the Linux desktop today is what it is because the GNU license protected the integrity of Linux. AFAIK 80+% of the Linux desktop is based on GNU licensed code.I agree, the title should’ve been a question with a brief description.
Or like in Hacker News, they put the date when it’s old stuff (something like “Linux is obsolete (1992)”)
That would’ve been a better idea on my end
In case you didn’t know, you can edit your post title!
The debate back then was already Tanenbaums fight against his own Minix’ obsolescence.
As I understand it Minix was quite popular among the scholars it was designed for.
But Tannenbaum wouldn’t make it “free”, although it did come for free with the book and you could get the source code for free. It was not licensed to enable further developments by users.I stand by my claim that the problem was 100% the license. If Minix had used the GNU license, chances are pretty good that Minix could have become what Linux is today.
But of courser there are other factors, like how Linux worked with GNU, which was already a nearly finished OS that just lacked a kernel. So adding the 2 together and voila you had a complete OS.
Why can’t they just duel or something. Keyboard fencing. Mouse throwing. Vim beeping…
For people downvoting, if you actually read it, you’ll understand it’s not what it looks like. It’s a piece of history, not an opinion.
Argued. Decades ago. And now? Who does even remember Tanenbaums’ “Minix”?
There is an opinion that nowadays Minix is more widespread than Linux. Minix is used in microcontrollers, CPU firmwares, in many other places. It is just hidden in blobs that end-users don’t tinker with.
Statistics schmatistics. Like sure, one can say that Minix is used in microcontrollers and all around the world and thus the usage ratio between Linux and Minix is about 3% vs 98%; but one could also argue that these microcontrollers and firmwares are not actually “used” by someone, they are just middleware and accessory just in the same way we don’t count count LED headlights separately for tallies on driving (and pedestrian) culture, and then we can firmly say that ratio is now 3% to ~0%.
Me. I set up a minix system a couple years ago.
yeah the micro vs monolithic debate has been going on for a long long time. so far monolithic has won out usage wise.
Monolithic is just way easier to implement and maintain while also providing better performance
