Live data from Hacker News

Minix development has been abandoned?

git.minix3.org

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Minix development has been abandoned?

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bash does more work for non C locales. Dash does not. You can configure bash without locale support when compiling it, or just set the locale to C to get a more apples-to-apples comparison.

Isn’t C the wrong locale, though? Why would I want to use something which is incorrect as the basis for comparison?

If you want the behavior that bash gives you with your locale, then dash scores "zero" on any benchmark, since dash does not implement that. If you don't want the behavior that bash gives you with your locale, then it's a correct comparison.

Re: Minix development has been abandoned?

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not hard to believe for me: https://itsfoss.com/fact-intel-minix-case/

Hard for me to believe that that's what killed the enthusiasm.

Note added later: Some people have pointed out online that if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it since then it would have had to publish the modifications to the code. Maybe yes, maybe no, but the modifications were no doubt technical issues involving which mode processes run in, etc. My understanding, however, is that the small size and modular microkernel structure were the primary attractions. Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs. A company as big as Intel could obviously write its own OS if it had to. My point is that big companies with lots of resources and expertise sometimes use microkernels, especially in embedded systems. The L4 microkernel has been running inside smartphone chips for years. I certainly hope Intel did thorough security hardening and testing before deploying the chip, since apparently an older version of MINIX was used. Older versions were primarily for education and newer ones were for high availability. Military-grade security was never a goal.

Second note added later: The online discussion got completely sidetracked from my original points as noted above. For the record, I would like to state that when Intel contacted me, they didn't say what they were working on. Companies rarely talk about future products without NDAs. I figured it was a new Ethernet chip or graphics chip or something like that. If I had suspected they might be building a spy engine, I certainly wouldn't have cooperated, even though all they wanted was reducing the memory footprint (= chip area for them). I think creating George Orwell's 1984 is an extremely bad idea, even if Orwell was off by about 30 years. People should have complete control over their own computers, not Intel and not the government. In the U.S. the Fourth Amendment makes it very clear that the government is forbidden from searching anyone's property without a search warrant. Many other countries have privacy laws that are in the same spirit. Putting a possible spy in every computer is a terrible development.

Source: https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

Re: Minix development has been abandoned?

#114
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of them

That's pretty poor analysis. The existence of an issues list on GitHub doesn't automatically mean that the issues are valid, and the 2nd random one that I picked was someone complaining that fetching a package with FTP didn't work when the network was down. In 2021. * https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-Foundation/minix... Then this one turned out to be a chat request. * https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Res…

That's all well and good, but Minix is not "done", no one involved with Minix is billing it that way, and no one who knows anything about the current state of things would let anyone who tried to say that get away with it.

tambourine_man posed a valid hypothetical, but that's all it is: hypothetical.

Re: Minix development has been abandoned?

#115
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More of an "educational" kernel. If you are writing this on an intel CPU, you are likely running minix3 right now. It's not not educational, but it's not the primary goal compared to earlier versions.

Not necessarily. You can turn off vPro and don't use Intel based network chips, so the management engine is disabled on the hardware level.

Hence, "Likely". Especially so if you are of the opinion that it's only educational.

Re: Minix development has been abandoned?

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, full OS with its own microkernel and NetBSD-forked userland.

What's the point of nitpicking userland if we're concerned with processor build-in management engines?

Minix3 was born as a full OS, not a management engine. What Intel really did with the code, nobody really knows.
Post reply on HN