The adversities that spurred the creation of GNU are more symbolic than their material counterpart. Even if the AT&T lawsuits and the panic they caused are irrelevant now, the "GNU's Not Unix" is a reflection of the inevitable adversities of abusive powerstructures that still persist in our society and will inevitably crop up regardless of what happens.
But it does have a binary package manager and a ports tree, just like FreeBSD.
In order to understand where UNIX weenie terms like "microkernel" and "monolithic" come from, you need to understand OSes like Multics and VMS, which have between 4 and 32 rings. The innermost ring only contained the tiniest most important code, which we would call a microkernel. Drivers and everything else ran in outer rings. The PDP-11 did not have rings, just kernel and user modes, and since RISCs were designed to run a PDP-11 OS, neither did RISCs.
How would an OS with 16 rings run on a RISC? Microkernel "kernel mode" is ring 0 and microkernel "user mode" is rings 1 to 15. Monolithic "kernel mode" is rings 0 to 14 and monolithic "user mode" is ring 15. These rings can also be divided in any other arbitrary ways.
UNIX shills used their marketing power to make it sound like an "evolution" of UNIX instead of a bad version of what people were doing since the 60s, just another bad mangling of Multics concepts. Since it's UNIX, it was too slow, so all the advantages disappeared and microkernels got a bad reputation.
Hey. This is unix-haters, not RISC-haters. Look, those guys at berkeley decided to optimise theirchip for C and Unix programs. It says so right in theirpaper. They looked at how C programs tended to behave, and(later) how Unix behaved, and made a chip that worked thatway. So what if it's hard to make downward lexical funargswhen you have register windows? It's a special-purposechip, remember? Only then companies like Sun push their snazzy RISCmachines. To make their machines more attractive theyproudly point out "and of course it uses the greatgeneral-purpose RISC. Why it's so general purpose that itruns Unix and C just great!" This, I suppose, is a variation on the usual "the wayit's done in unix is by definition the general case"disease.
Huh, you're right. Seems like I confused a few things. FreeBSD's old pkg_delete can't clean up unneeded dependencies while OpenBSD's apparently can. Also OpenBSD's packages are signed since 2014 lol, which is nice. They weren't when I checked last time.
Does it have any containerization like jails or cgroups yet? And is vmm any good?
Dude you shit up every single thread on this board.
I think at this point vmm is just for running virtual instances of OpenBSD, to aid in development. At some point it will probably be able to run other OS, but I don't know when.
There's no jails, but they've been pldge'ing tons of ports (the base system was already done a while ago). Video about pledge: youtube.com
I'm starting to like those posts for their historical perspective to be honest.
Okay, buddy.
wow it'd be interesting to see such a bad ass girl
HI guys! ^.^
I saw you're talking about microkernel OSes and wanted to chime in.
So microkernels have been around for a while, but so far have not been all that successful. HURD moves at a snail's pace and is basically dead, Minix3, aside from the ME, isn't really usable outside of maybe embedded stuff, and QNX is proprietary. It's sad because I really like the ideas behind this design >_<
However, I feel as though like it or not, microkernels will become widely used as a desktop platform. The problem is, will we like the source of this paradigm shift?
You probably all know about this by now, but for those who don't, Google is making a microkernel OS called Fuchsia. It runs on the Zircon microkernel which is their fork of littlekernel (lk) by a guy who worked on Haiku's. There's been a lot of media speculation, although the most common assumption is that it could end up being pushed as a replacement for Android, or as a desktop/lappy OS.
The wiki article, along with the citations in it, should give you an idea. Also here's the source code link:
en.wikipedia.org
fuchsia.googlesource.com
There's a few things I feel about this:
First, if I know anything about Jewgle, it's that normies love them and don't think about the botnet too much. I have a feeling that Fuchsia will succeed due to Jewgle's marketing powers and influence.
Second, this kinda disproves the whole "muh performance" FUD. If it's gonna be fast enough to run on phones, the performance overhead can't be that bad. Things have certainly gotten better since the days of mach.
Lastly, it makes me wonder how many months/years until it will be finished enough for consumer devices. And how many months/years after that will it take for a de-botneted fork to happen?