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

Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

#131

Post by westurner »

lproven wrote: post #124
westurner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux (1991) started as a fork of MINIX (1987) by Tanenbaum. History of Linux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux MINIX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix Redox OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox_(operating_system) : > Redox is a Unix-like microkernel operating system written in the programming language Rust, which has a focus on safety, stability, and performance. [4][5][6] Redox aims to be secure…

> Linux (1991) started as a fork of MINIX (1987) by Tanenbaum. That is not true and never was. It was in part bootstrapped on Minix but it contains no Minix code at all and was built with GNU tools.

No, that's definitely a fork (or a clone); fairly with significant differences, including the regression to a macrokernel.

That the MINIX code was replaced before release does not make it not a fork.

Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

#133

Post by lproven »

westurner wrote: post #131
lproven wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux (1991) started as a fork of MINIX (1987) by Tanenbaum. That is not true and never was. It was in part bootstrapped on Minix but it contains no Minix code at all and was built with GNU tools.

No, that's definitely a fork (or a clone); fairly with significant differences, including the regression to a macrokernel. That the MINIX code was replaced before release does not make it not a fork.

Nope.

Fork: take the existing code, make your own version and start modifying. That does not apply here.

Torvalds did not take any Minix code; one of the reasons he did his own was that the licence agreement on Minix prevented distribution of modified versions. At the time Freax/Linux got started, people were distributing patch sets to Minix to add 286 memory management, 386 handling and so on, because they could not distribute modified versions.

The Linux kernel started out as 100% new original code. I was there; I watched the mailing lists and the USEnet posts as it happened. It's the year I started paying for my own personal online account and email, after 4Y in the industry.

The origins of Torvalds' kernel were as a homegrown terminal emulator. He wanted it to be able to do downloads in the background while he worked in a different terminal session. This required timeslicing. He tried and found it was complicated, so he started implementing a very simple little program that time-sliced between 2 tasks, one printing "AAAAAA..." to the console and the other printing "BBBBB..."

This is all documented history, which it seems you have not read.

You are wrong.

Furthermore:

> including the regression to a macrokernel.

This indicates that you are not aware of the differences between Minix 1, 2 and 3.

Minix 3 (2005) is a microkernel.

Minix 1 (1987) was not and does not support an MMU. It runs on the 8086 and 68000 among other things.

Linux (1991) was originally a native 80386 OS, the first x86-32 device and a chip that was not yet on sale the year that Minix 1 was first published.

Summary:

Linux is not a fork of Minix and is unrelated to Minix code.

Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

#135

Post by aa-jv »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #123
aa-jv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux was NEVER a fork of MINIX. That is just false. Linus developed Linux in response to the experience he had with MINIX - but there is no MINIX code in Linux and never was.

> Linus developed Linux in response to the experience he had with MINIX - but there is no MINIX code in Linux and never was. For the last statement, Wikipedia disagrees: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minix&oldid=11846... "Eric Raymond claimed that Linus hasn't actually written Linux from scratch, but rather reused source code of MINIX itself to have working codebase. As the development progressed, MINI…

I was there. I watched Linux from the beginning, including the minix-list discussions.

The only thing Linus 'copied' (rather, modelled) was the initial directory tree layout and some of the names of the core module filenames - none of the code.

Linus was interested in MINIX, no question - and motivated to write his own kernel - but he literally did not fork MINIX.

In "History of Linux" this falsehood is addressed - and it has to be said is amazing that you are parroting even still today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux

I challenge you to find the code, from MINIX, that Linus copied and then modified and called it Linux. This is what forking means.

Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

#137

Post by joezydeco »

egorfine wrote: post #132
joezydeco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FreeRTOS isn't a threat.

Amazon is.

If the planet was covered in Alexa devices and Dash buttons I'd say maybe. But even Amazon knows IoT node hardware is a sucker's game. Unless you have a highly vertical application that you can charge customers for, it's a market none of the FAANGs will touch.

Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

#138

Post by junon »

joezydeco wrote: post #137
egorfine wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is.

If the planet was covered in Alexa devices and Dash buttons I'd say maybe. But even Amazon knows IoT node hardware is a sucker's game. Unless you have a highly vertical application that you can charge customers for, it's a market none of the FAANGs will touch.

Not sure your point. For me at least, it's about FreeRTOS's freedom and not being mangled by some megacorp since it's one of the few battle tested Firmware OSes out there.

Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX

#139

Post by sillywalk »

MegaDeKay wrote: post #21
joezydeco wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the notion here that opening up ThreadX will start to allow visibility into VideoCore, since ThreadX runs the thing. But an RTOS/scheduler is only a miniscule part of a GPU and since Broadcom never opens up anything, I believe it's a false hope. Opening up any GPU code, from any maker, invites patent lawsuits from competitors. And then the injunctions start flying.

"Broadcom never opens up anything". True, but from a link in the related article from The Guardian [0] > Broadcom when they developed the original Videocore firmware bought a licence for ThreadX from the writer. AIUI, a lifetime licence, it never expires. No royalties or anything like that. Raspberry Pi have modified that firmware many many times over the last 10 years, but no royalties to pay. Many years later the w…

from your [0]

"the Pi5 has a massively reduced firmware (as much as possible is moved to ARM/kernel space). It now does very little."

I did a quick search and came up empty. Does anybody have any more info about this?

Post reply on HN