This is really cool. Reminds me of the original Unix was invented in a couple weeks while Ritchie's family went on vacation to CA to visit his in-laws.
Source: UNIX: A History and a Memoir Paperback – October 18, 2019
by Brian W Kernighan (Author)
But I think it’s relevant to say that before writing Unix he was working on Multics for a long time already. Unix was a “simplified” version of it, if I remember well. So it didn’t “spring out of thin air.”
Unix was a kind of play word for Unique as an anti-thesis for Multics that latter was originally designed for modern multi-user and multi-process OS. Ironically as any real-world OS Unix eventually becomes multi-user system similar to Multics but the name stucked. Granted Unix has a very simple (as in simple as possible but no simpler) multi-user permission and security system that work reliably for many decades until now. Of all the organizations NSA actually even come up with a better replacement for the modern Unix permission and security model with SELinux, but most users just ignored and disabled SELinux although it's installed by default by many major Linux distros [1].
[1] SELinux is unmanageable; just turn it off if it gets in your way:
I think you mean Ken Thompson. I can't be bothered searching through youtube interviews but I'm pretty shure that on more than one occasion, he tells a story something along the lines of having a disk driver, some programs, and maybe some other components. His wife went on a trip and he figured it would be enough time to fill in the gaps and make a complete OS.
Yes. But it is written in no edit stone now. I’m sorry for the future google searches in which this received top billing instead of Ken Thompson’s name.
> I also finally learned how signals work from top to bottom, and boy is it ugly. I’ve always felt that this was one of the weakest points in the design of Unix and this project did nothing to disabuse me of that notion.
Would love any resources that goes in more details, if any HN-er or the author himself knows of some!
It's honestly a breath of fresh air to simply read a book that explains clearly how Unix works, with self-contained examples, and which is comprehensive and organized. (If you don't know C, that can be a barrier, but that's also a barrier reading blog posts)
I don't believe the equivalent information is anywhere on the web. (I have a lot of Unix trivia on my blog, which people still read, but it's not the same)
IMO there are some things for which it's really inefficient to use blog posts or Google or LLMs, and if you want to understand Unix signals that's probably one of them.
(This book isn't "cheap" even used, but IMO it survives with a high price precisely because the information is valuable. You get what you pay for, etc. And for a working programmer it is cheap, relatively speaking.)
Not positive, but pretty sure that this, and the Unix Network book were golden for us in the 90s when we were writing MUDs. Explained so much about Socket communications (bind/listen/accept,...) Been a long time since I looked at that stuff, but those were fun times.
Signals are at the intersection of asynchronous IO/syscalls, and interprocess communication. Async and IPC are also weak points in the original Unix design, not originally present. Signals are an awkward attempt to patch some async IPC into the design. They're prone to race conditions. What happens when you get a signal when handling a signal? And what to do with a signal when the process is in the middle of a system call, is also a bit unclear. Delay? Queue? Pull process out of the syscall?
If all syscalls are async (a design principle of many modern OSes) then that aspect is solved. And if there is a reliable channel-like system for IPC (also a design principle of many modern OSes) then you can implement not only signals but also more sophisticated async inter-process communication/procedure calls.
As I wrote in some older discussion about UNIX signals on HN, the root problem (IMHO, of source) is that signals conflate three different useful concepts. The first is asynchronous external events (SIGHUP, SIGINT) that the process should be notified about in a timely manner and given an opportunity to react; the second is synchronous internal events (SIGILL, SIGSEGV) caused by the process itself, so it's basically low-level exceptions; and the third is process/scheduling management (SIGKILL, SIGSTOP, SIGCONT) to which the process has no chance to react so it's basically a way to save up on syscalls/ioctls on pidfds. An interesting special case is SIGALRM which is an asynchronous internal event.
See the original comment [0] for slighlty more spellt out ideas on better designs for those three-and-a-half concepts.
Unix signals do... a lot of things that are separate concepts imo, and I think this is why there are people who don't like it or take issue with it.
You have SIGSTOP/SIGCONT/SIGKILL, which don't even really signal the process, they just do process control (suspend, resume, kill).
You have simple async messages (SIGHUP, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2, SIGTTIN, SIGTTOU, etc) that get abused for reloading configuration/etc (with hacky workarounds like nohup for daemonization) or other stuff (gunicorn for example uses the latter 2 for scaling up and down dynamically). There's also in this category bizarrely specific things like SIGWINCH.
You also have SIGILL, SIGSEGV, SIGFPE, etc for illegal instructions, segmentation violations, FP exceptions, etc.
And also things that might not even be good to have as async things in the first place (SIGSYS).
---
As an aside, it's not the only approach and there's definitely tradeoffs with the other approaches.
Windows has events, SEH (access violations, other exceptions), handler routines (CTRL+C/CTRL+BREAK/shutdown,etc), and IOCPs (async I/O), callbacks, and probably some other things I'm forgetting at the moment.
Plan 9 has notes which are strings... which lets you send arbitrary data to another process which is neat, but it using the same mechanism for process control imo has the same drawbacks as *nix except now they're strings instead of a single well-defined number.
The Windows mechanisms you're mentioning were also added over the course of many, many years. Much of Windows also happened a long time after UNIX signals were invented.
If you're including all that other stuff, it's probably fair to include all of the subsequent development of notification mechanisms on the UNIX side of the fence as well; e.g., poll(2), various SVR4 IPC primitives, event ports in illumos, kqueue in FreeBSD, epoll and eventually io_uring in Linux.
That is a good article. I found myself nodding in agreement while reading it, thinking "Yeah, I've been bitten by that before".
How does Windows handle this? There's still signals, but I believe/was under the impression that signals in Windows are an add-on to make the POSIX subsystem work, so maybe it isn't as broken (for example, I think it doesn't coalesce signals).
It's important to remember that code in a signal handler must be re-enterant. "Nonreentrant functions are generally unsafe to call from a signal handler."
reentrancy is not sufficient here - at least that provided by mutex style exclusion. the interrupted thread may have actually been the one holding the lock, so if the signal handler enters a queue to wait for it, it may be waiting quite a while
As a baseline, I support developers using whatever license they would like, and targeting whatever operating systems, indeed, writing whatever code they would like in the process.
That doesn't make this specific policy a good idea. Even FSF, generally considered the most extreme (or, if you prefer, principled) exponents of the Free Software philosophy, support Windows and POSIX. They may grumble and call it Woe32, but Stallman has said some cogent things about how the fight for a world free of proprietary software is more readily advanced by making sure that Free Software projects run on proprietary systems.
They do at least license the library code under MPL, so merely using Hare doesn't lock you into a license. But I wonder about the longevity of a language where the attitude toward 95+% of the desktop is "unsupported, don't ask questions on our forums, we don't want you here".
Ironically, a Google search for "harelang repo" has as the first hit an unofficial macOs port, and the actual SourceHut repo doesn't show up in the first page of results.
Languages either snowball or fizzle out. I'm typing this on a Mac, but I could pick up a Linux machine right now if I were of a mind to. But why would I invest in learning a language which imposes a purity test on developers, when even the FSF doesn't? A great deal of open source and free software gets written on Macs, and in fact, more than you might think on Windows as well.
From where I sit, what differentiates Hare from Odin and Zig, is just this attitude of purity and exclusion. I wish you all happy hacking, of course, and success. But I'm pessimistic about the latter.
On the one hand, I can respect the authors for sticking to what they want to accomplish and not accommodating every demand.
On the other hand, that is hardly the only thing from the FAQ that raises one's eyebrows:
> we have no package manager and encourage less code reuse as a shared value
> qbe generates slower code compared to LLVM, with the performance ranging from 25% to 75% the runtime performance of comparable LLVM-generated code
> Can I use multithreading in Hare? Probably not.
> So I need to implement hash tables myself? Indeed. Hash tables are a common data structure that many Hare programs will need to implement from scratch.
As it stands, this is definitely not a language designed for mass adoption. Which is fine, and at least they're upfront about it.
Some of those design decisions I’m okay with, but deliberately not providing a basic hash table for general usage is pretty bizarre. I can’t think of even one serious software project I’ve worked on that didn’t need a dictionary/map-like data structure somewhere in the code.
> But why would I invest in learning a language which imposes an arbitrary purity test on developers?
While I understand your concerns, I disagree with your the idea of “imposition”. Someone doing something for free doesn’t owe anyone to do it in a particular way (as long as it’s not malevolent). You’re free to express your opinion, but if the developer has already established his guidelines, criticisms like this is not constructive.
Sounds like you and the Hare people have different definitions of success. As for "languages either snowball or fizzle out," I feel like that's pretty dismissive of a lot of languages that have been steadily marching on for decades even without this rockstar status.
Not every band has to hit the Billboard charts to be worth listening to.
It says they won’t officially support Windows or MacOS. Some other project can try to port it if they want, right? It seems good of them to be honest about their intended level of support.
This is not true and a naive statement.
There are quite few languages which are not popular across the board but have a very firm niche in which they thrive and fulfill critical roles.
I think focusing on Linux makes sense for limiting the scope of the project. Supporting Mac sucks when you own no Apple hardware and have no personal interest in the ecosystem. Windows users probably can just use WSL, right? Or I mean, people use docker these days anyway.
So I get it. Especially if it is to be a more niche or pet project but then again I don't buy the ideological reason. I am a really big proponent of free software and their stance just doesn't make any sense. I agree with you here. But then again they can do whatever they want.
I don't think that Apple particularly cares about porting their software to Linux. Do you feel the same about Apple? That with such an attitude, they surely cannot succeed?
Apple releases a great deal of open source software, which, so far as I'm aware, all runs on Linux as well. At least Swift, clang, and LLVM, all run on Windows as well. So does their Objective C compiler, so of Apple's programming languages, that leaves AppleScript. I would not describe AppleScript as robustly successful.
I believe Apple could probably get away with keeping Swift proprietary, or only supporting Apple platforms. But they don't. I have no inside-track information on why that is, but I suspect the reason is fairly simple: developers wouldn't like it.
"We cannot effectively study, understand, debug, or improve, the underlying operating system if it is non-free. We actively work with the source code for the systems on which we depend, and we are not interested in supporting any platforms for which this is not possible."
I understand that you don't like it, but how do you come to regard a statement like this as "arbitrary?" It's exclusive, for sure. "Purity test" is one way to characterize it. But do you really think that statements like this are just the product of individual caprice? That it's not someone's attempt at a principled intervention, but just an "attitude?"
Ouch, I hadn't really considered it before but that quote deeply resonates with me. The experience of trying to debug windows wifi system is day and night compared to wpa_supplicant/mac80211.
I was going to post the same quote. If you have no visibility into the layer you depend on, you really can’t reason about it or write optimized code for it.
The Hares are saying they require that, which I totally understand and respect.
There's no purity test and the Hare devs aren't prohibiting you from using Hare on macOS or any other platform.
They just don't want to maintain Mac/Windows ports themselves. If somebody else is interested, they can maintain a port. Like that macOS one that you've already found.
Versus now... I changed the text on a button with an internationalized string. It only took me about a week.
I put the English string in the catalog, updated a number of tests, run the tests on the local system, pushed the change to staging cluster, fix unanticipated test failures, push the change to production, contact the translators to have the string translated to a number of languages, and have documentation updated.
I suggest you use translation management tools, so the translator gets the strong as soon as you add it to the catalog.
Buy anyway there's no "then vs now" when you are really comparing "prototype" to "deliver to users". It took Unix decades to get those strings translated.
Drew is smart and his timeline is short but I think it’s the wrong way to look at it if you just put him on a pedestal for it. Making a UNIX clone is a typical undergrad project at most universities. Extending that to something that is complete is something that requires perseverance, not special genius.
I think it is a matter of how you are exposed to programming. I started with pascal at 9, and I wrote my first (VM-)bootable OS in junior high school (around the age of 14). Not as fancy as this of course, but it booted into an environment not unlike r4rs scheme - based on SIOD. A scheme error was handled but any C errors would immediately lead to a kernel panic.
I am not a programmer today, but I can still wrap most of my head around many low level concepts. I can't, however, write anything resembling a modern web page. Nor can I understand how any larger JS application works.
NachOS was developed at Berkeley and maintained at UW. Both are top-ranked CS programs. Undergraduates are expected to add features to the core OS e.g. virtual memory, not build it from scratch.
... and also a previously kernel implementation called Helios to provide a lot of the lowest level code. Not trying to knock down the accomplishment, but DD is pretty open about the fact that a lot of the speed of this project was dependent on having done Helios first (and reusing code from it).
It was really cool watching the ~daily updates on this on Mastodon - seeing how someone so skilled gradually pieces together a complex piece of software.
We prefer to encourage the use of event loops (see unix::poll or hare-ev) for multiplexing I/O operations, or multiprocessing with shared memory if you need to use CPU resources in parallel.
It is, strictly speaking, possible to create threads in a Hare program. You can link to libc and use pthreads, or you can use the clone(2) syscall directly. Operating systems implemented in Hare, such as Helios, often implement multi-threading.
However, the upstream standard library does not make reentrancy guarantees, so you are solely responsible for not shooting your foot off.
> multiprocessing with shared memory if you need to use CPU resources in parallel
This is actually pretty powerful. I personally prefer it for most purposes, because it restricts the possibility of data races to only the shared memory regions. It's a little like an "unsafe block" of memory with respect to data races.
Readit News
Source: UNIX: A History and a Memoir Paperback – October 18, 2019 by Brian W Kernighan (Author)
[1] SELinux is unmanageable; just turn it off if it gets in your way:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31176138
Right. Almost nothing does.
You see, it's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqI7MrtxPnk
By the way the CHM oral history video series is full of gems.
Sometimes small and simple is good.
I'll have to check because my memory is failing me atm.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050414215646742
Would love any resources that goes in more details, if any HN-er or the author himself knows of some!
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Programming-UNIX-Environment...
It is about using all Unix APIs from user space, including signals and processes.
(I am not sure what to recommend if you want to implement signals in the kernel, maybe https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6.html )
---
It's honestly a breath of fresh air to simply read a book that explains clearly how Unix works, with self-contained examples, and which is comprehensive and organized. (If you don't know C, that can be a barrier, but that's also a barrier reading blog posts)
I don't believe the equivalent information is anywhere on the web. (I have a lot of Unix trivia on my blog, which people still read, but it's not the same)
IMO there are some things for which it's really inefficient to use blog posts or Google or LLMs, and if you want to understand Unix signals that's probably one of them.
(This book isn't "cheap" even used, but IMO it survives with a high price precisely because the information is valuable. You get what you pay for, etc. And for a working programmer it is cheap, relatively speaking.)
If all syscalls are async (a design principle of many modern OSes) then that aspect is solved. And if there is a reliable channel-like system for IPC (also a design principle of many modern OSes) then you can implement not only signals but also more sophisticated async inter-process communication/procedure calls.
See the original comment [0] for slighlty more spellt out ideas on better designs for those three-and-a-half concepts.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39595904
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB_UNIX
https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html
You have SIGSTOP/SIGCONT/SIGKILL, which don't even really signal the process, they just do process control (suspend, resume, kill).
You have simple async messages (SIGHUP, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2, SIGTTIN, SIGTTOU, etc) that get abused for reloading configuration/etc (with hacky workarounds like nohup for daemonization) or other stuff (gunicorn for example uses the latter 2 for scaling up and down dynamically). There's also in this category bizarrely specific things like SIGWINCH.
You also have SIGILL, SIGSEGV, SIGFPE, etc for illegal instructions, segmentation violations, FP exceptions, etc.
And also things that might not even be good to have as async things in the first place (SIGSYS).
---
As an aside, it's not the only approach and there's definitely tradeoffs with the other approaches.
Windows has events, SEH (access violations, other exceptions), handler routines (CTRL+C/CTRL+BREAK/shutdown,etc), and IOCPs (async I/O), callbacks, and probably some other things I'm forgetting at the moment.
Plan 9 has notes which are strings... which lets you send arbitrary data to another process which is neat, but it using the same mechanism for process control imo has the same drawbacks as *nix except now they're strings instead of a single well-defined number.
If you're including all that other stuff, it's probably fair to include all of the subsequent development of notification mechanisms on the UNIX side of the fence as well; e.g., poll(2), various SVR4 IPC primitives, event ports in illumos, kqueue in FreeBSD, epoll and eventually io_uring in Linux.
It goes into the problems with Unix signals, and then explains why Linux's attempt to solve them, signalfd, doesn't work well.
How does Windows handle this? There's still signals, but I believe/was under the impression that signals in Windows are an add-on to make the POSIX subsystem work, so maybe it isn't as broken (for example, I think it doesn't coalesce signals).
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/functions/bs...
It's important to remember that code in a signal handler must be re-enterant. "Nonreentrant functions are generally unsafe to call from a signal handler."
https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal-safety.7.html
https://wiki.vmssoftware.com/Mailbox
Deleted Comment
As a baseline, I support developers using whatever license they would like, and targeting whatever operating systems, indeed, writing whatever code they would like in the process.
That doesn't make this specific policy a good idea. Even FSF, generally considered the most extreme (or, if you prefer, principled) exponents of the Free Software philosophy, support Windows and POSIX. They may grumble and call it Woe32, but Stallman has said some cogent things about how the fight for a world free of proprietary software is more readily advanced by making sure that Free Software projects run on proprietary systems.
They do at least license the library code under MPL, so merely using Hare doesn't lock you into a license. But I wonder about the longevity of a language where the attitude toward 95+% of the desktop is "unsupported, don't ask questions on our forums, we don't want you here".
Ironically, a Google search for "harelang repo" has as the first hit an unofficial macOs port, and the actual SourceHut repo doesn't show up in the first page of results.
Languages either snowball or fizzle out. I'm typing this on a Mac, but I could pick up a Linux machine right now if I were of a mind to. But why would I invest in learning a language which imposes a purity test on developers, when even the FSF doesn't? A great deal of open source and free software gets written on Macs, and in fact, more than you might think on Windows as well.
From where I sit, what differentiates Hare from Odin and Zig, is just this attitude of purity and exclusion. I wish you all happy hacking, of course, and success. But I'm pessimistic about the latter.
On the other hand, that is hardly the only thing from the FAQ that raises one's eyebrows:
> we have no package manager and encourage less code reuse as a shared value
> qbe generates slower code compared to LLVM, with the performance ranging from 25% to 75% the runtime performance of comparable LLVM-generated code
> Can I use multithreading in Hare? Probably not.
> So I need to implement hash tables myself? Indeed. Hash tables are a common data structure that many Hare programs will need to implement from scratch.
As it stands, this is definitely not a language designed for mass adoption. Which is fine, and at least they're upfront about it.
While I understand your concerns, I disagree with your the idea of “imposition”. Someone doing something for free doesn’t owe anyone to do it in a particular way (as long as it’s not malevolent). You’re free to express your opinion, but if the developer has already established his guidelines, criticisms like this is not constructive.
Not every band has to hit the Billboard charts to be worth listening to.
Supporting an OS the devs don’t use is a big ask.
This is not true and a naive statement. There are quite few languages which are not popular across the board but have a very firm niche in which they thrive and fulfill critical roles.
So I get it. Especially if it is to be a more niche or pet project but then again I don't buy the ideological reason. I am a really big proponent of free software and their stance just doesn't make any sense. I agree with you here. But then again they can do whatever they want.
I believe Apple could probably get away with keeping Swift proprietary, or only supporting Apple platforms. But they don't. I have no inside-track information on why that is, but I suspect the reason is fairly simple: developers wouldn't like it.
I understand that you don't like it, but how do you come to regard a statement like this as "arbitrary?" It's exclusive, for sure. "Purity test" is one way to characterize it. But do you really think that statements like this are just the product of individual caprice? That it's not someone's attempt at a principled intervention, but just an "attitude?"
The Hares are saying they require that, which I totally understand and respect.
They just don't want to maintain Mac/Windows ports themselves. If somebody else is interested, they can maintain a port. Like that macOS one that you've already found.
Dead Comment
Example of “creating something impressive in X days” requires a lot of experience and talent that is built over years.
I put the English string in the catalog, updated a number of tests, run the tests on the local system, pushed the change to staging cluster, fix unanticipated test failures, push the change to production, contact the translators to have the string translated to a number of languages, and have documentation updated.
Buy anyway there's no "then vs now" when you are really comparing "prototype" to "deliver to users". It took Unix decades to get those strings translated.
https://www.ticalc.org/archives/files/fileinfo/463/46387.htm...
Sadly defunct. I guess the real OS was the syscalls we made along the way.
I am not a programmer today, but I can still wrap most of my head around many low level concepts. I can't, however, write anything resembling a modern web page. Nor can I understand how any larger JS application works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Another_Completely_Heurist...
https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~tom/nachos/
https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112319697309218275
GPLv3 license.
That answered my initial surprise of clicking on the ISO and getting a 60MB download.
For comparison, Linux 0.01 was a 71k download, but contained only the kernel source.
Though this limitation will limit its adoption in this multicore age I think:
From the FAQ https://harelang.org/documentation/faq.html
....
Can I use multithreading in Hare?
Probably not.
We prefer to encourage the use of event loops (see unix::poll or hare-ev) for multiplexing I/O operations, or multiprocessing with shared memory if you need to use CPU resources in parallel.
It is, strictly speaking, possible to create threads in a Hare program. You can link to libc and use pthreads, or you can use the clone(2) syscall directly. Operating systems implemented in Hare, such as Helios, often implement multi-threading.
However, the upstream standard library does not make reentrancy guarantees, so you are solely responsible for not shooting your foot off.
This is actually pretty powerful. I personally prefer it for most purposes, because it restricts the possibility of data races to only the shared memory regions. It's a little like an "unsafe block" of memory with respect to data races.
Well, that not only rules out multi-threading, but also usage in interrupts. Quite a limitation for a "systems programming language" methinks.