The Fiasco Team is pleased to announce version 1.1 of the Fiasco L4 microkernel developed at the University of Technology, Dresden and released under the GNU General Public License (GPL).This Fiasco release is mostly a bugfix release. Among the new features added in version 1.1 is support for the ARM processor architecture, the integration of the powerful Fiasco kernel debugger (JDB) into the Fiasco-UX usermode kernel and a completely revised “tagged TLB” emulation (also known as small address spaces).
The Fiasco microkernel currently supports the stable version V.2 and the experimental version X.0 of the L4 interface specification and runs on x86 (i486 and above) and ARM SA1110 CPUs. The included Fiasco-UX port runs on any x86-based Linux system as a normal usermode application.
I think the original L4 kernel was coded in full assembler.
However, when I last looked at the webpages, projects to
implement the L4 kernel in high-level languages (C++ ?)
were most prominent.
How is this version of the L4 implemented?
Ok. It looks like the Fiasco kernel is indeed implemented in C++ . How does the C++ version compare to the assembler version in regards to performance and size?
it’s a bit off topic, and i’m sure i’m not the first to ask this, but why in hell did they pick such an unfortunate name?
To be humorous, I am sure. It’s one of the trademarks of unix folks
The Hurd developers are considering porting the Hurd servers to L4 to circumvent the numerous failings of GNUMach. L4 supports novel things like shared IRQs, and pressing a key during boot won’t cause a kernel panic like GNUMach. L4 definitely seems the most solid microkernel around nowadays. But how does it deal with non-x86 architectures?
I would be most interested in knowing what hardware is supported (NIC, soundcard, video, etc), all I could find was that it requires a 486 or higher CPU. I’m sure there are also limitations as to SCSI controllers, etc.
Anybody has a url to a list of supported hardware?
I believe it is named Fiasco after a famous conversation between Linus Torvalds Andy Tanenbaum that was posted to comp.os.minix on Jan of 92
Here is a comment made by Linus in 92
—————–
True, linux is monolithic, and I agree that microkernels are nicer. With a less argumentative subject, I’d probably have agreed with most of what you said. From a theoretical (and aesthetical) standpoint linux looses. If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I’d not have bothered to even start my project: the fact is that it wasn’t and still isn’t. Linux wins heavily on points of being available now.
MINIX is a microkernel-based system. [deleted, but not so that you miss the point ] LINUX is a monolithic style system.
If this was the only criterion for the “goodness” of a kernel, you’d be right. What you don’t mention is that minix doesn’t do the micro-kernel thing very well, and has problems with real multitasking (in the kernel). If I had made an OS that had problems with a multithreading filesystem, I wouldn’t be so fast to condemn others: in fact, I’d do my damndest to make others forget about the FIASCO
—————–
caps mine for emphasis, and this is just a guess so I could easilly be wrong.
Do you know that in the Italian language, the word “Fiasco” means “terrible failure”?
Yes, I do. Thank you for the kind warning.
Here is some news for you: “Fiasco” means “terrible failure” in almost any language, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, and German (where it is actually spelled “Fiasko”).
http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/fiasco/faq.html#2900
Nice it runs in Bochs/Plex86. That opens easy testing purposes
As usual for an Microkernel-Design all drivers live in userland – outside the kernel. So Fiasco itself does NOT provided drivers.
AFAIK supported Hardware is currently:
– CPUs (as listed)
– SCSI
– some networkcards
– VESA-compatible graphiccards (see DOpE http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~nf2/dope.html)
– a few soundcards
– USB-Stack with OV511-Cams
Have a look at the demo disk: http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/drops/download.html
Many drivers are supported also by L4Linux (a Linux running atop of the L4-Kernel in usermode) – but not providing Realtime-Support.
I thought the name came from a disagreement with IBM. They sponsored the original L4, and then wouldn’t let the researchers release it under an open-source style license. So the researchers rewrote the whole thing from scratch, and called it Fiasco.
I don’t have an official source for this, I just remember the news.
Everyone expects to read about a big cockup. Not sure people read on though
“Everyone expects to read about a big cockup. Not sure people read on though”
No, not everyone.. and i think the developers aren’t interested in these people.
Anyone who believes ”Great Software” is really ”Great” because of the name, Microsoft” really only developers ”Micro Software” is gives too much value to the brand/name.
What’s in a name? Not much. Granted, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t however assuming it *does*, is short-sighted imo.
I see it as a form of self-mockery and as a challenge to find out if the software is really a fiasco (:
…and now i’m gonna check out wether there’s a penguin inside my computer or not. Later.
Like Pistacho which is BSD licensed and I think It runs in x86 and Powerpc. Pistacho can run Linux as a server. There are also comercial L4s.