Andrew Tanenbaum, creator of MINIX, argued in 1992 that Linux, being a monolithic kernel, represented an outdated design compared to the microkernel approach of MINIX. He believed that microkernels, with their modularity and message-passing architecture, offered superior portability, maintainability, and reliability, especially as technology moved towards distributed systems and multicore processors. Tanenbaum predicted that Linux, tied to the aging Intel 386 architecture, would soon become obsolete and fade away as more advanced hardware and software paradigms emerged. He emphasized the conceptual superiority of MINIX's design, portraying Linux as a step backwards in operating system development.
In a Usenet post from 1992 titled "LINUX is obsolete," Andrew S. Tanenbaum, a professor and creator of the MINIX operating system, argues that the monolithic kernel architecture of Linux, then a nascent operating system, is inherently inferior to the microkernel architecture championed by MINIX and predicted to be the future of operating system design. Tanenbaum asserts that Linux, being tied to the Intel 386 architecture, is already outdated, while microkernel-based systems like MINIX are portable and thus more future-proof. He points to the rapidly evolving hardware landscape, expecting the 386 to be superseded soon, rendering Linux's specific design choices obsolete.
Tanenbaum elaborates on the technical reasons behind his assertion, claiming that monolithic kernels, where all operating system services run in kernel space, become increasingly difficult to manage and port as they grow in complexity. He contrasts this with the microkernel approach, where only essential services reside in the kernel and other functionalities operate in user space, leading to a more modular, flexible, and therefore maintainable system. He argues that this modularity simplifies debugging and allows for easier adaptation to new hardware platforms.
Further emphasizing the perceived backwardness of Linux, Tanenbaum criticizes its reliance on segmented memory management, a feature of the 386 architecture, which he deems outdated compared to the paging-based memory management found in more modern processors. He predicts that future operating systems will invariably adopt paging, making Linux's segmented memory approach a technological dead end. Tanenbaum also highlights the perceived advantage of microkernels in distributed systems, suggesting that their inherent modularity lends itself more readily to networked environments. He suggests that the future of computing lies in distributed and networked systems, implying that Linux, with its monolithic kernel, is ill-equipped for this future.
Finally, Tanenbaum offers MINIX as a practical example of a modern, microkernel-based operating system and invites readers to explore its advantages over Linux. He concludes with a somewhat dismissive tone, implying that Linux is a temporary phenomenon bound for obsolescence while microkernels represent the direction of operating system evolution. He subtly suggests that continuing to develop Linux is a wasted effort given its architectural limitations.
Summary of Comments ( 140 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42980283
HN commenters largely dismiss the linked 1992 post arguing for Minix over Linux. Many point out that the author's predictions about Linux's limitations due to its monolithic kernel and lack of microkernel structure were inaccurate, given Linux's widespread success and ongoing development. Some acknowledge that microkernels have certain advantages, but suggest that Linux's approach has proven more practical and adaptable. A few commenters find the historical perspective interesting, noting how the computing landscape has changed significantly since 1992, rendering the arguments largely irrelevant in the modern context. One commenter sarcastically celebrates Tanenbaum's foresight.
The Hacker News post titled "LINUX is obsolete (1992)" links to a 1992 Usenet post within the comp.os.minix group where Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the creator of MINIX, criticizes the monolithic kernel architecture of Linux, predicting its imminent obsolescence in favor of microkernel systems. The Hacker News thread contains several comments discussing Tanenbaum's arguments and their historical context.
A compelling line of discussion revolves around the accuracy of Tanenbaum's predictions. Many commenters point out that Linux's success ultimately proved Tanenbaum wrong, with Linux becoming the dominant operating system in many domains while microkernels remained a niche technology. They discuss the reasons for this outcome, citing factors like the rapid pace of hardware development making portability less critical, the performance advantages of monolithic kernels at the time, and the open-source nature of Linux fostering a larger community and faster development.
Some commenters delve into the technical details of Tanenbaum's arguments, discussing the perceived advantages of microkernels in terms of security, reliability, and portability. They acknowledge that these advantages are theoretically sound, but that practical implementation challenges and the performance overhead associated with microkernels hindered their widespread adoption.
Several comments also touch upon the historical context of the debate. They highlight the "Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate," a famous online exchange between Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, where they argued about the merits of their respective kernel architectures. These comments often provide links or references to the original debate, allowing readers to explore the arguments in more detail.
Some commenters express a degree of sympathy for Tanenbaum's perspective, acknowledging that his arguments were based on the prevailing understanding of operating system design at the time. They suggest that in 1992, given the state of hardware and software, microkernels seemed like a more promising approach, and that Linux's success was not necessarily foreseeable.
Finally, a few comments offer personal anecdotes or reflections on the impact of the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate. They discuss how the debate shaped their understanding of operating systems and contributed to the development of the open-source movement.
In summary, the Hacker News comments provide a retrospective analysis of Tanenbaum's 1992 critique of Linux, examining the technical arguments, historical context, and ultimate outcome of the debate. They largely agree that Tanenbaum's predictions were incorrect, but acknowledge the validity of his concerns based on the knowledge available at the time. The comments offer valuable insights into the evolution of operating system design and the factors that contributed to Linux's dominance.