I was recently assigned reading from the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debates in my OS class. In the debates, Tanenbaum makes some predictions:Microkernels are the futurex86 will die out and RISC architectures will dominate the market(5 years from then) everyone will be running a free GNU OSI was a one year old when the debates happened, so I lack historical intuition. Why have these predictions not panned out? It seems to me, that from Tanenbaum's perspective, they're pretty reasonable predictions of the future. What happened so that they didn't come to pass?
Why was Tanenbaum wrong in the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debates?
operating systems;kernel
Microkernels are the futureI think Linus hit the points on monolithic kernels in his debate. Certainly some lessons learned from microkernel research was applied to monolithic kernels. Microsoft sometimes used to claim that the Win32 kernel was a microkernel architecture. It's a bit of a stretch when you look at some textbook microkernels, but the claims had some technical justification.x86 will die out and RISC architectures will dominate the marketIf you back up from desktops and servers, RISC dominates the processor market by any measure. ARM (R stands for RISC) outsells x86 in number of processors, there are more ARM processors than x86 processors in use, and there is more total ARM computing capacity than x86 computing capacity. This year, a single ARM vendor (yeah, Apple) may outsell all x86 vendors combined. Only in the desktop and server space does x86 dominate. So long as Windows is the dominant platform for desktop computers and Linux for servers, this is likely to continue to be true for a while.There's a part b to this as well. Intel engineers did some amazing work to squeeze life out of their instruction set, even to the point of making a RISC core with an opcode translator that sits on top. Compare to one of the dominant RISC desktop chip makers, IBM, who could not get a power-efficient and high performance G5 for Apple laptops in a reasonable timeframe.(5 years from then) everyone will be running a free GNU OSI think the various OS vendors still offer compelling value propositions on their OSes. GNU isn't even necessarily the most important player in the Open Source community, so even a more widespread adoption of open source software didn't necessarily translate into GNU OSes. Yet, there's a whole lot of GNU stuff out there (all Macs ship with GNU's Bash, for example. There's probably some GNU system tools on Android phones). I think the computer ecosystem is a lot more diverse than Tanenbaum foresaw, even when you restrict your view to desktop computers.