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

Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#71

Post by exDM69 »

istvan__ wrote: post #26
RexRollman wrote: post #8

When I first read this, I thought this was meant to be a sarcastic statement on SystemD haters, but this is for real? I would assume this is all geared to scratching some kind of retro computing itch?

Well there are some people out there who have valid concerns about SystemD and in general, about Linux the big and bloated, unmaintainable, insecure monolithic kernel. Is that a valid concern? I am not sure. Is that going to be fixed by Alan Cox and Fuzix? Also not sure. I like the idea of Minix, and that would be a good direction to move on, but the big companies who are contributing the majority[1] of the current L…

> Is that going to be fixed by Alan Cox and Fuzix? Also not sure.

The beginning of the OP is obviously a joke.

This is a retro computing hobby project for 1970s era microprocessors. It's obviously not intended to be any kind of replacement for Linux or any other OS on modern computers.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#73

Post by jff »

Alupis wrote: post #31
rodgerd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, interestingly enough, a senior maintainer who quit because he got sick of Linus' behaviour.

not being familiar with this case -- but from an outside perspective reading the mailing list now, seems Alan introduced a patch that broke userland code -- which is the biggest No-No in kernel hacking, ie. the number 1 rule is don't break userland. Alan appeared to argue userland code was broken and not his patch, which just made Linus mad (as expected). The kernel strives to never break userland, even when userland…

> code around the broken parts and provide compatibility until userland changes/fixes their problem

read: provide compatibility indefinitely.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#74

Post by istvan__ »

exDM69 wrote: post #71
istvan__ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are some people out there who have valid concerns about SystemD and in general, about Linux the big and bloated, unmaintainable, insecure monolithic kernel. Is that a valid concern? I am not sure. Is that going to be fixed by Alan Cox and Fuzix? Also not sure. I like the idea of Minix, and that would be a good direction to move on, but the big companies who are contributing the majority[1] of the current L…

> Is that going to be fixed by Alan Cox and Fuzix? Also not sure. The beginning of the OP is obviously a joke. This is a retro computing hobby project for 1970s era microprocessors. It's obviously not intended to be any kind of replacement for Linux or any other OS on modern computers.

Well, in certain aspects Linux started as a joke. :)

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#75

Post by Alupis »

jff wrote: post #73
Alupis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not being familiar with this case -- but from an outside perspective reading the mailing list now, seems Alan introduced a patch that broke userland code -- which is the biggest No-No in kernel hacking, ie. the number 1 rule is don't break userland. Alan appeared to argue userland code was broken and not his patch, which just made Linus mad (as expected). The kernel strives to never break userland, even when userland…

> code around the broken parts and provide compatibility until userland changes/fixes their problem read: provide compatibility indefinitely.

yes that's the idea. in fact, it was only last year (or maybe 2012) that intel 386 (an almost 30 year old cpu) support was finally dropped. This is how binaries from 20 years ago will still run on today's hardware and kernel with zero modifications. That is a good thing, especially for enterprise.

it's not that they leave security vulnerabilities in, it's that they build compatibility for any software that may expect something to work a certain way, while simultaneously fixing the underlying problem. To software, it should not care what kernel it's running on going forward.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#76

Post by justincormack »

cturner wrote: post #64
dorfsmay wrote: post #63

I wonder how difficult, or even possible (no security architecture at the processor level) it would be to port NetBSD to the z80.

Maybe from an old BSD but not from NetBSD. There's a fairly hard cut-off between the design of early OSs with no memory protection (e.g. legacy Mac OS, W95, Amiga, DOS, Locomotive basic), and operating systems which ration memory out to processes (NT, BeOS, Linux, BSD, Solaris). The later group depends on hardware features that the z80 didn't have. Version 7 unix is in the first camp. Whereas BSD had paged virtual me…

Retrobsd is a good starting point.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#77

Post by justincormack »

tracker1 wrote: post #36
Dewie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to mention this might be an easier introduction to low-level OS hacking than having to deal with all the cognitive overhead of contributing to larger projects like Linux and the BSDs Do you have an opinion on Minix, in this respect?

I'd really love to see a micro-kernel with just enough drivers to run on modern hardware, then tied to a higher level platform. I know it may seem really weird, but would love to see node running on something like this. I know there's been some work on getting something like node working with embedded systems via translation, or communication channels, it'd just be nice to see this micro application to something larg…

Look at rumpkernel, OSv, the x-on-Xen solutions eg Mirage.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#78

Post by IgorPartola »

Alupis wrote: post #67
IgorPartola wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So reading this thread, I keep asking "could Linus have said what he needed to say in nicer terms and gotten better results?" I think so. In every Linus rant I encounter he goes on and on about the problem, then the person causing the problem, and typically attacks the developer. It's one thing to rule with an iron fist, it's another to target individuals and not the behavior.

> It's one thing to rule with an iron fist, it's another to target individuals and not the behavior. Quite honestly, I don't see any of this in the thread in question.

Where he's practically yelling "WHY?". Here's how it could be re-written to be a more effective email:

"Hey Alan,

The problem is that while you make pty.c have the correct behavior, lots of legacy userland code relies on the current implementation. Since as kernel developers, we must avoid breaking userland code at all costs, a better solution is to change the behavior, but implement a compatibility layer. Once enough userland code has been fixed, we can remove the compatibility layer. This has been our standard approach for these types of issues, and I think it would work here. While I understand how frustrating it is to not be able to fix this once and for all, I think we need to address our users' needs first.

Thanks, Linus"

Shorter, nicer, more to the point, and with much less time wasted on emotional outbursts.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#79

Post by progman »

sedachv wrote: post #11

For anyone who thinks this is a joke, or that the Z80 can't do anything useful: http://www.symbos.de/

The old processors are commonly underestimated. I remember the times of the first versions of Turbo Pascal on CP/M and 8086. It had a very basic user interface (just key strokes) but the language was very convenient, and compilation was incredibly fast, almost instant.

I also had an Atari ST with 8MHz 68000 (no math copro) with Tempus Editor (ASCII) and Tempus Word (word procesor). Both were written in assembler, also incredibly fast -- faster than MS Word on a PC today. Other people used their Atari ST to write their disseration with Signum, and others published professional newspapers with it.

What does a PC really need? A convenient assembler, a few compilers, a screen editor (vi), a simple database, a word processor (TeX), simple TCP/IP and other very basic things. Just the things which Alan focuses on. Unix on a Z80 or on enhanced FPGA cores sounds really interesting.

I am a happy Linux user for decades but I am seriously concerned about the future of Linux. On one hand Linux will probably soon be kept out from hard locked UEFI/Secure Boot systems, on the other hand modern PCs cannot be trusted anymore in case of security anyway. Also many Linux distros follow the questionable systemd way which makes me wonder if Linux will soon be bloated up like Windows. The Linux kernel runs wonderful so far but it already has several million lines of code, and systemd will add a significant level of complexity.

These things are reasons why I consider Alan's approach of "back to the roots" the right way and very promising. Not only the software is open source but also the requirements for the hardware are so low that many people could build their own System V Unix Z80 systems at home. Cheap microcontrollers like the Parallax Propeller could be added to provide VGA output and parallel I/O.

Re: Alan Cox announces Fuzix OS

#80

Post by DanBC »

leoc wrote: post #60
rodgerd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm familiar with the incident. I was reading LKML when it happened. It's a counterpoint to the usual "Linus's style doesn't cause any problems."

> Yes, I'm familiar with the incident. I was reading LKML when it happened. Probably the link was posted for the benefit of others.

Yes, thanks. I should have mentioned that.
Post reply on HN