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

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#21

Post by nine_k »

toolslive wrote: post #19
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 ;))

To tel the truth, Plan 9 was not a resounding success of adoption. Quite a number of its ideas were re-invented independently, and then became successful. We don't run anything using the Inferno VM, but the JVM reigns supreme in the corporate world. Go flourishes mostly in the normal Unix environment. And that mounting a networked GUI application with half of its code running remotely is completely superseded by the Web platform.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#22

Post by mirceal »

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.

At a bare minimum the naming is a fiasco

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#23

Post by nix0n »

escherplex wrote: post #20
albuquerque wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Snopes[0] disagrees with this story.

[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-spanis...

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#24

Post by pjmlp »

nine_k wrote: post #21
toolslive wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;))

To tel the truth, Plan 9 was not a resounding success of adoption. Quite a number of its ideas were re-invented independently, and then became successful. We don't run anything using the Inferno VM, but the JVM reigns supreme in the corporate world. Go flourishes mostly in the normal Unix environment. And that mounting a networked GUI application with half of its code running remotely is completely superseded by the…

Regarding Dis, we at least have Android and Windows, even if is only an approximation.

But it would have been better if Inferno had better luck, but what to expect when even Plan 9 fans keep forgeting that the OS had a successor.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#25

Post by escherplex »

nix0n wrote: post #23
escherplex wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Snopes[0] disagrees with this story. [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-spanis...

It is still a marketing class cliché [1] however debunked

[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/chevy-nova-that-wouldnt-go-3078090

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#26

Post by alalo »

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.

That's why the system is called L4Re nowadays, and the microkernel specifically "L4Re microkernel". Fiasco however remains the nerd version, let alone to have discussions as those here.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#27

Post by nickpsecurity »

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?

Andrew Tannenbaum goes into detail in his exploration on how to make operating systems reliable:

https://www.openu.ac.il/home/wiseman/2os/microkernels/tanenb...

In a debate with Torvalds, he also cites a lot of examples of microkernel use:

https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/

Although most are commercial, Genode is an example of an open-source system built with the architecture. It's a variation of Nizza architecture whose idea was to minimize attack surface and complexity to just what a specific application needs.

https://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/papers_ps/nizza.pdf

https://genode.org/

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#28

Post by nickpsecurity »

als0 wrote: post #18
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.…

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…

"MINIX predates L4 and has evolved independently."

Minix 3, a new system with the same name, doesn't predate L4. Tannenbaum probably learned stuff from the L4 people given he cites their work in his microkernel debate with Torvalds. They made a custom kernel since their requirements were different than L4 people's. They might have also thought it would be fun. Lots of researchers like just doing their own thing for the experience.

"L4 has had quiet success in the embedded space. "

Don't understate it: OKL4 claimed deployment in a billion phones mostly for baseband isolation. Got acquired by General Dynamics for big bucks. So, there's one, success story.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#29

Post by dsr_ »

escherplex wrote: post #20
albuquerque wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

If you knock a glass bottle off of a table, it makes a terrible mess.

Re: The Fiasco microkernel

#30

Post by atombender »

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?

While Mach 3.0 was designed to be a microkernel, macOS doesn't actually use it as one. The entire kernel, called XNU, runs in kernel mode, just like Linux.

The macOS kernel had a reputation for sluggishness back in its early days, due (to the best of my understanding) due to the sluggishness of Mach messaging, which is how Mach implements system calls to the kernel. macOS also supports BSD syscalls, and Apple has apparently done enough optimization here that it's now roughly on par with Linux.

Around 2006, Apple did have an internal, experimental version of macOS ("Darbat") which ran Mach on top of the L4 microkernel, but this project was canceled, for whatever reason.

Post reply on HN