Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com (Mariusz Stanczak) (05/06/91)
So, the decision has been (yippie!) made as to the bases of
the GNU OS, and since some people expressed their interest in
hacking a new OS for the 3B1 on this forum, I thought it'd be
appropriate to post the article here.
-Mariusz
[the article follows the "reference" line]
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
The Free Software Foundation is beginning work on a GNU operating
system built on top of the Mach 3.0 microkernel. There are three
goals to this project worth noting:
o Binary compatability with 4.4 BSD, and other U*x or U*xish systems
on other hardware where appropriate, convenient, and consistent with
the design;
o Posix compliance (in combination with the GNU C Library and the GNU
C Compiler); and
o Ease of use as well as several new features and functionality.
I am interested in constructive criticism on the interfaces, design,
and implementation from experts in the field of OS research and design
consistent with the above goals. Advice from seasoned U*x hackers is
especially welcome.
We have a mailing list for discussion. Currently there is little
discussion on the group; the major contributors to the ideas behind
the design all live in the Boston area at this point, and work has
been done via face-to-face communication. I would like to open the
field of discussion to a broader base, both to get wider dissemination
of the ideas behind the current design, as well as to get a greater
breadth of criticism. Periodic postings are currently made to the
mailing list containing a snapshot of the interfaces used by the
various pieces of the system. I would like to see discussion as well;
perhaps we need a critical mass to get this.
Interested individuals should send me email. I don't regularly read
the newsgroups to which this message is posted.
[U*x is an abbreviation for a well-known trademark of AT&T. :-)]
-mib
--
INET: Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com
CIS : 71601.2430@compuserve.com
UUCP: ..!uunet!zardoz!ttank!fbits!Mariuszyarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) (05/08/91)
Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com (Mariusz Stanczak) quotes: >| The Free Software Foundation is beginning work on a GNU operating >| system built on top of the Mach 3.0 microkernel. There are three >| goals to this project worth noting: >| >| o Binary compatability with 4.4 BSD The problem with this that the Mach 'microkernel' is about as big as the entire 3b1 OS, and then some monster compatible with 4.4BSD is to run as a process on _top_ of that. There is no way it will fit in a 3b1. The other factor to note is that this is _very_ heavy vaporware. Even the details of 4.4BSD are not yet out, mostly because it is still in the process of being written. -- Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu "Do not think what you want to think until you know what you ought to know." (Crow's Law)
Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com (Mariusz Stanczak) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.035642.28195@cs.yale.edu>, yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes: > The problem with this that the Mach 'microkernel' is about as big as the > entire 3b1 OS, and then some monster compatible with 4.4BSD is to run as a > process on _top_ of that. There is no way it will fit in a 3b1. Well Norman, you must be more in the known, and I have not seen the code, but all that I have read about the effort (Mach microkernel, not GNU kernel), its design goals, and the intent/idea behind it (on a theoretical level) left me with a completely different picture. One of the pieces I read (about the differences between Mach kernel, and the future microkernel [I think in CTR]) mentioned a 1000 line C code for the whole thing. True, the microker- nell needs many layers glued onto it (the BSD "look&feel" in this case) to become an OS, but it, in itself, should be a few K's big for all I understand. What do you know that leads you to believe in what you stated above? It's quite a revolation(sp) to me. > The other factor to note is that this is _very_ heavy vaporware. Even the > details of 4.4BSD are not yet out, mostly because it is still in the process > of being written. Very true, but then isn't anything that's just being started "vaporware"? The microkernel idea is just few years old(new), and OSF's implementation (with all its resources, and commitment) is a couple years away, so GNU's effort will be a thing coming into fruition for some years ahead. I'd begg to differ... vaporware are things that are announced with a particular date (and usually shady intent), and then not delivered. In GNU's case, vaporware might be things that are not worked on, but then its US and nobody else. It's a very ambitious effort, and the projection is about right... as 4.4BSD develops, so accordingly will the pieces be picked up... after all you develop for tomorow, not today. "Everybody" was pledging(sp) OSI commit- ment before first layer was a reality. Is there anything "wrong" with that? I mean look at the results. -Mariusz -- INET: Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com CIS : 71601.2430@compuserve.com UUCP: ..!uunet!zardoz!ttank!fbits!Mariusz
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) (05/11/91)
In article <110@fbits.ttank.com> Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com (Mariusz Stanczak) writes: >In article <1991May8.035642.28195@cs.yale.edu>, yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes: >> The problem with this that the Mach 'microkernel' is about as big as the >> entire 3b1 OS, and then some monster compatible with 4.4BSD is to run as a >> process on _top_ of that. There is no way it will fit in a 3b1. > >Well Norman, you must be more in the known, and I have not seen the code, >but all that I have read about the effort (Mach microkernel, not GNU kernel), >its design goals, and the intent/idea behind it (on a theoretical level) >left me with a completely different picture. One of the pieces I read (about >the differences between Mach kernel, and the future microkernel [I think in >CTR]) mentioned a 1000 line C code for the whole thing. Your decimals need some work. We have Mach 3.0 code here. Note that this is NOT the version with BSD wedged into the kernel. Kernel source alone is about 100,000 lines of code. This does not include any of the machine-specific sections, which can be quite large; for example, the i386 machine-specific code is 40,000 lines. >True, the microkernel needs many layers glued onto it (the BSD "look&feel" >in this case) to become an OS, but it, in itself, should be a few K's big >for all I understand. What do you know that leads you to believe in what >you stated above? It's quite a revolation(sp) to me. I can't quote a source on this, but I believe I remember a discussion - maybe in comp.arch - initiated by a shocked reader who booted Mach on his 386 and found it was 300k. >> The other factor to note is that this is _very_ heavy vaporware. Even the >> details of 4.4BSD are not yet out, mostly because it is still in the process >> of being written. > >Very true, but then isn't anything that's just being started "vaporware"? >The microkernel idea is just few years old(new), The idea is about ten years old. >and OSF's implementation (with all its resources, and commitment) is a >couple years away. A prerelease version of OSF/1 is running quite stably on a Decstation 3100 here at Brown. Note that OSF/1 is BSD wedged into the microkernel, not built around it. >I'd begg to differ... vaporware are things that are announced with a >particular date (and usually shady intent), and then not delivered. Vaporware is any software or hardware which has been announced but not yet completed. Curtis
alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) (05/11/91)
I'm pretty sure that curtis said these things... >We have Mach 3.0 code here. Note that this is NOT the version with BSD >wedged into the kernel. > >Kernel source alone is about 100,000 lines of code. This does not include >any of the machine-specific sections, which can be quite large; for example, >the i386 machine-specific code is 40,000 lines. [...] >I can't quote a source on this, but I believe I remember a discussion - >maybe in comp.arch - initiated by a shocked reader who booted Mach on his >386 and found it was 300k. [...] somebody else said.. >>> The other factor to note is that this is _very_ heavy vaporware. Ho hum, ho hum. I've been fooling around with this (conceptually anyway) and I have some thoughts. [1] Mach is certainly not vaporware, I have the sources in front of me now. They don't include a 68k port, but they are free and availble for 386 and mips architectures. [2] I think that mach plus the unix layer would be pointless on the unixpc, (a) because its big and (b) because of the time involved to make it as stable as the unixpc kernel. Mostly (b). I think that people don't appreciate the unixpc kernel for what it is. My machine is up for weeks/monthes at a time, the documentation is pretty good, and for the most part, it works as advertised. The few bugs there are are well known at this point, and somebody on this group can tell you almost anything that you want to know about the box. Say that about zenix, Microport or any of a dozen competing systems (tried to support an Ardent titan lately?) The software is getting dated, but there's a good C compiler, debugger and editor availabe, and modern graphics is too heavy for our hardware anyway. [3] None the less, I think that mach is intreaging, because it provides a way to run something other then unix on this machine. I'm thinking standalone programs here, something thats developed under unix and runs in place of the unix kernel. There already is one solution available, the diagnostics disk. I've been running standalone programs the link to the diagnostics code for awhile, but its very grody and undocumented. Mach is pretty big, but its also segmented well, so it can be run without some of the modules (like the networking drivers, and the debugger, and a few other things). A flat file system that would run in a disk partition would be easy to code, and most of the drivers could be based on what comes with the diagnostics disk code. So anyway, I might try and bring it up this summer if I can find time. It shouldn't take too long, and I'd be happy to share the effort if someone was interested. Of course, I may never get time, in which case someone else should do it :-). But I think that its a really good idea. -- ################################# :alex. #Disclaimer: Anyone who agrees # Systems Programmer #with me deserves what they get.# University of Maryland Baltimore County ################################# alex@umbc3.umbc.edu
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (05/13/91)
In article <75230@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: |In article <110@fbits.ttank.com> Mariusz@fbits.ttank.com (Mariusz Stanczak) writes: |>The microkernel idea is just few years old(new), | |The idea is about ten years old. Actually, the *idea* is more than 2 decades old. A commercial implementation of this particular idea has been available since the late 60's (you may have heard of the company that developed it, they're still around, still selling the virtual operating system, and they're blue). We can probably assume that the idea predates this point in time at least. I restrained myself from quoting Curtis' comment about missing a decimal point - he isn't quite that far out. -- sendmail - as easy to operate and as painless as using | John Macdonald manually powered dental tools on yourself - John R. MacMillan | jmm@eci386