Well, when I read Tanenbaum's report from I'm not sure when and all the regrets when sponsorship opened the doors to contributions, I assumed that a lesson (not a simple one) was learnt.
I have my own opinions which I prefer to keep to myself, but what is hard to argue with is that it is all just code. Good code, bad code, once it works as expected and is not impossible to maintain, one just needs to throw resources at it (plus management and supervision, those are resources as well) to make it better. And that's precisely what I think needs to happen here as well as anywhere else. My own view of "better" is along the lines of "smaller", "simpler", but the important thing is to be able to measure "progress" by some metric that doesn't shift too much. If Minix-3 fails, in some ways, its lessons will remain. If Linux, fails, even, the world will move on. Let's just say there shouldn't be any incentive to push something everyone can learn from to fail... On 5/8/19, Ethan Gardener <eeke...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2019, at 5:17 AM, Lucio De Re wrote: >> Keep in mind where Minix-3 >> lurks, before you discount it... > > I didn't discount Minix-3 until I learned it's recently started using memory > protection, and they're having trouble making it work with their IPC. I'll > wait until they've got it sorted. > > -- Lucio De Re 2 Piet Retief St Kestell (Eastern Free State) 9860 South Africa Ph.: +27 58 653 1433 Cell: +27 83 251 5824 FAX: +27 58 653 1435
