Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fiasco microkernel

l4re.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#11

Post by brazzy »

presscast wrote: post #10
ahartmetz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an implementation of the L4 microkernel API. Microkernel systems can be more reliable than monolithic kernels, but traditionally have the problem of high communication overhead between the services constituting the kernel. The Mach kernel (used by macOS and others) is an example of a known slow microkernel. L4 implementations have been demonstrating since the mid 90s that low overhead microkernels are possible.…

Thanks for the overview. This is exactly the level of analysis I was looking for! >The Mach kernel (used by macOS and others) Where/how does this typically manifest itself? Why isn't macOS slow/sluggish?

The kernel of macOS is XNU, which is basically a hybrid of Mach (microkernel) and BSD (monolithic Kernel). I guess the implication is that they had to create this hybrid because it would have been too slow otherwise.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#12

Post by gnarbarian »

presscast wrote: post #10
ahartmetz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an implementation of the L4 microkernel API. Microkernel systems can be more reliable than monolithic kernels, but traditionally have the problem of high communication overhead between the services constituting the kernel. The Mach kernel (used by macOS and others) is an example of a known slow microkernel. L4 implementations have been demonstrating since the mid 90s that low overhead microkernels are possible.…

Thanks for the overview. This is exactly the level of analysis I was looking for! >The Mach kernel (used by macOS and others) Where/how does this typically manifest itself? Why isn't macOS slow/sluggish?

>Why isn't macOS slow/sluggish?

That's a feature of the reality distortion field.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#13

Post by pjmlp »

As Portuguese and microkernel advocate, I would really like that they had chosen a different name for the OS.

Fiasco means total failure without any kind of possible rescue in Portuguese.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#18

Post by als0 »

ahartmetz wrote: post #6
presscast wrote: post #3

I only have superficial knowledge of kernel-level systems, so a list of features doesn't give me a sense of a project's reason for existing. What's this project solving, exactly?

It is an implementation of the L4 microkernel API. Microkernel systems can be more reliable than monolithic kernels, but traditionally have the problem of high communication overhead between the services constituting the kernel. The Mach kernel (used by macOS and others) is an example of a known slow microkernel. L4 implementations have been demonstrating since the mid 90s that low overhead microkernels are possible.…

MINIX predates L4 and has evolved independently.

Unfortunately, L4 and microkernels in general have (unfairly) gained a bad reputation in some circles, stemming from some projects in the 90s that ended in spectacular failure. Examples include IBM's Workplace OS, which costed billions of dollars in development. L4 has had quiet success in the embedded space. General interest has renewed thanks to interesting projects like the seL4 project.

> I wonder why neither Minix 3 nor Fuchsia are using L4

There are many variants of L4, which have similar concepts and APIs but favour different design choices. So it's not that straight forward. In my opinion, I suspect companies with enough manpower will find it easier to make a new project and take the best ideas of L4 without importing all the controversial or philosophical aspects.

Edit: fixed a typo

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#19

Post by toolslive »

pjmlp wrote: post #13

As Portuguese and microkernel advocate, I would really like that they had chosen a different name for the OS. Fiasco means total failure without any kind of possible rescue in Portuguese.

The tradition/joke with OS design is that a worse name typically means a better OS. (Plan 9, Fiasco, ). While ambitious names often denote a bad OS (plenty of examples there ;))

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#20

Post by escherplex »

albuquerque wrote: post #15
billsmithaustin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that in English, too.

Also in French!

Wondered why that name was chosen too. Etymology meaning failure does show it to come from Italian far fiasco = make a bottle = dud theatrical performance. Reminds you of GM motors wondering why their Chevy Nova wasn't selling well in Latin America. Why? In Spanish Nova = No va = It doesn't go (work).
Post reply on HN