Re: Microkernels & Ada (Was for the AdaOS folks)

[Adrien Plisson <aplisson-news@stochastique.net>]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> I agree with an earlier post that there
> is a certain "troll factor" to this article.

indeed, the proof is we are talking about it !

> Maybe that is required from time to time to get people
> motivated enough to do something about it, or, for lack of
> action, to at least discuss it.

right ! and as we are discussing it, are we doing soemthing about it ?
on your side, i know you do. unfortunately, on my side i only have 
ideas. they surely need a lot more thinking to get a project started.

> I've recently developed an interest in microkernel
> design and have been reading much of the
> monolithic argument against microkernels etc. Much of
> the argument is of course in support of Linux's design,
> it seems, to justify their design approach.

well, it would have felt strange if it didn't... but this is holy war 
afterall.

 > [...]
> Others criticize microkernels on the performance issue. This
> point is harder to ignore, but I personally believe that this
> also will become an insignificant issue with time. Each year
> we see more powerfull CPU chips, and in a short period of
> time, it looks like we may soon have dual, quad and
> octo-core CPU chips. The efficiency factor becomes less
> important with these types of advances in hardware.

that is part of the problem. we count to much on CPU power. when 
computers were slow, we had powerful and efficient software. now 
computers have 512 times more memory and are more than 300 times faster. 
what i see is: software are getting bigger and bigger with no really 
added features, and they perform almost as slowly as 20 years ago, if 
not slower. in those dark ages, developpers were taking great care not 
to cripple software with useless features and wrote efficient software.
nowadays, developpers don't think a bit when designing software and rely 
on CPUs power growth to take care it.

> [...]
> You can bet on the fact that if everyone used a microkernel
> designed O/S today, Intel, AMD, IBM and others would be
> working hard to fix some of that "overhead" problem. The
> rest of the overhead may not be worth going after, but the
> big problems would get attention.

and what about them designing something new too ? Intel once had very 
good ideas with the i432. why don't they try again ?

> [...]
> My time is limited, but what I feel I _can_ do, is get an
> O/S project started, using an _existing_ microkernel.
> I suggested as much this last summer. After a month or
> so, the idea bother me so much, that I had to try
> something.

i'm thinking hard on it too. but i don't know if i will be able to 
really try it.

> I firmly believe that others could do the same thing. The
> point is that more _research_ needs to be done on _SAFE_
> and _SECURE_ operating systems. We have enough fully
> featured (M$) and fast (*NIX) systems, but I'd like to
> see a secure and rootless O/S for starters.

i disagree here ! i am facing people everyday that don't know how to use 
their computer. they are just lost in the middle of all the features 
available to them. this kind of people need something simple and 
efficient. an OS which provides them with the tools they need to do what 
they WANT to do, and nothing more. in the vein of the macintosh some 
years ago...

(and if Man was not that violent we wouldn't need any security feature)

 > [...]
> While POSIX is good for UNIX and portability, when starting a
> new O/S, I think you need to say "who cares about POSIX?" Work
> from the requirements back to the implementation. POSIX embodies
> a lot of good ideas, and I don't suggest that we want to be
> different without good reasons for it, but I think some fresh
> thinking would be welcome.

i do often think of something NEW from scratch. if i could, i would even 
reinvent networks and protocols... but i'm a bit of an extremist on this 
point.

> This wasn't true when UNIX was being initially developed. It
> need not be the case for a new design. The design just needs
> to solve a problem. For example, a secure O/S is needed for
> firewalls (hence my interest in a rootless O/S).

you are right ! we should stop developping full-featured monsters we 
can't manage, let's keep things simple.

> It doesn't need to take the world by storm either. It took
> years before suddenly everyone realized they needed a *NIX
> server (thanks to the Internet & www). I am sure that other
> opportunities are in the wing.

i don't see any... as you said earlier: "People are often stuck on what 
they know". so will they really create something new as internet and the 
www was ? but i hope one day we will see something changing. or maybe we 
will create our own oppotunity !

> [...]
> Well, the last thing I'll say is that if nobody takes the risk
> to produce a new O/S, then no one will risk using it ;-)

this makes a great quote !

-- 
rien

    "if nobody takes the risk to produce a new O/S,
     then no one will risk using it"
                                      Warren W. Gay