×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Sanos: A Core For Java-Based Appliances

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the single-purpose dept.

Operating Systems 17

Iman Habib writes "Sanos is a minimalistic 32-bit x86 OS kernel for jbox appliances. A jbox is a JavaOS server appliance running on standard PC hardware. This enables you to run Java server applications without the need to install a traditional host operating system like Windows or Linux. Only a standard Java HotSpot VM and the sanos kernel are needed. The kernel was developed as part of an experiment on investigating the feasibility of running Java server applications without a traditional operating system only using a simple kernel. The kernel implements basic operating system services like booting, memory management, thread scheduling, local and remote file systems, TCP/IP networking and DLL loading and linking. A thin win32 wrapper allows the Windows version of the standard HotSpot JVM to run under Sanos, essentially providing a JavaOS platform for server applications. This enables you to run java based server applications, like Tomcat and Jboss, under Sanos. Sanos is open source under a BSD-style license."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

AIYAPI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5817022)

http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=8366

But Java is slow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5817109)

And without the award-winning industry-acclaimed Microsoft(r) Windows (tm) operating systems how can a machine be expected to perform reliably?

Sanos implementation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5817142)

A good example of Sanos implementation together with the description of APIs and server-side architecture can be found here [pwgalleries.com] .

Re:Sanos implementation (2, Insightful)

mbogosian (537034) | more than 11 years ago | (#5818206)

+1 Interesting? Did I miss something? How is some overweight naked amature a "good example of Sanos implementation together with the description of APIs and server-side architecture"?

I really hope this doesn't slip through on Meta-Moderation [slashdot.org] ....

Re:Sanos implementation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5818289)

1) Why wasn't it interesting? Your disagreement would be apt, if the comment was modded as 'Insightful' or 'Funny', as the linked page is not. However, I personally found it interesting.

2) You've used the word 'overweight'. Now, judging from this example [pwgalleries.com] I would say your standards of slimness and thinness are rather high. That high, in fact, that there are maybe two or three hundred people who can fit it, and they are hunger victims or something. The girl is just fine, she's nowhere near over-weight.

I really hope this doesn't slip through on Meta-Moderation.....

Re:Sanos implementation (1)

mbogosian (537034) | more than 11 years ago | (#5818327)

2) You've used the word 'overweight'.... The girl is just fine, she's nowhere near over-weight.

You are correct. Overweight was a very poor word choice in retrospect.

Honestly, I followed the link, and came back to slashdot, at which time, all I could remember was large breasts. In my mind, these were over average in size. I must have attributed this characteristic to the rest of her, because I honestly couldn't remember anything but breasts until I went back to revisit the link after seeing your post.

Ready for my -1 OffTopic mods now....

Re:Sanos implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5818349)

He-he, should've used the "No Karma Bonus" one:-) Yes, the breasts are indeed splendid, maybe a bit disproportionate for her build.

Why a new OS? (2, Insightful)

Fished (574624) | more than 11 years ago | (#5817199)

Why bother creating a whole new OS kernel for this? Why not just put together a Linux distribution, compile a statically linked JVM (if you can - do they still make the JDK source available?) and have nothing but a kernel and a jvm binary?

That would give you all the drivers for free, and you would have a stable and proven reliable operating system instead.

not Java (1)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5818024)

but possibly Kaffe or more likely Wonka could be built into the kernel.

I think the important thing here is that the kernel's primary purpose is to run Java; it's the next best thing to a Java Processor (as opposed to a JVM.)

The Linux kernal also has a lot more bloat than this one, maybe Minix or the PDP11 version of UNIX would be a better candidate :)

Re:not Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5824910)

Well for one you get the BSD license vs GPL. A lot of companies think that BSD safer. It would allow them to close the source with out much effort.
It is another choice. Which is good. You can have free as in Beer, free as in speech, and free as in choice.

Re:Why a new OS? (2, Interesting)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5820533)

With a more or less pure Java thing like this, Linux simply isn't needed. A "stable and proven reliable operating system" isn't what is needed- just a platform for interpreting/JITing bytecodes. Linux processes, threads, etc aren't used, so why bother with all that needless cruft?

Or better yet, why not just use OSKit? You can use FreeBSD and Linux drivers as well as choose the TCP/IP stack from a couple of choices (incl. Linux, etc).

I presume the argument against a stripped down version of Linux would be detailed on the page, in the FAQ, or answered via an email- why not ask? Perhaps you can write drivers in Java, something you couldn't do in either OSKit or Linux?

Going with Linux would probably be the easiest thing to do, but I imagine there are reasons against it which perhaps those working on this project could share. For one of the distributions of Dynapad (my Smalltalk-based PDA OS/OE) I do more or less what you say- dump most userland tools, including X11 and QPE, and just run a statically linked VM on top of that. I managed to do that with no coding in C, which suits me fine. For people willing to muck around in C, their approach likely has a number of other advantages.

For the really broke... (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 11 years ago | (#5817272)

First off, the OS runs in less than 512K ram? Good show! Kind of wish I had not given all my 486 class computers for my brother to create 'sculpture'. Gives the possibility of doing some embedded work/streaming servers with some very low end hardware. I figure I could make it boot and run tomcat off an LS120 floppy. Heck, might even have room for the full JDK. (grin - you know who you are)

Curious how this would do outside the firewall as well. It would not be on the script kiddies list... With hardware, ram, and hard drives as cheap as they are, its hard to see uses outside the embedded space. A port to a palmos or cell phone could be interesting.

Really small... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5818419)

An OS that runs in 512K isn't small after you've seen this [dunkels.com] . It is a graphical multitasking OS that runs in about a tenth of 512K (around 50K) and still manages to put an Internet suite in there (TCP/IP stack, web server, web browser, etc.). They even mention [dunkels.com] porting a Java VM for it!

How about embedding a JVM into the Linux kernel? (2, Insightful)

mnmn (145599) | more than 11 years ago | (#5817660)


Or even running the JVM instead of init.

With a minimal kernel, this could be quite small.

Re:How about embedding a JVM into the Linux kernel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5819636)

Eh? Wouldn't that be exactly the same thing as Microsoft's Palladium?

Cool, but. . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5818267)

It is as insecure as my girlfreind's butthole after she passes out like a good little alcholic.

WHAM! Vi-o-lay-ted!

This could be done better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5821882)

Good idea implementation is not quite what it should be

1. The JVM should be embeded in the kernel this means it is able to help determine resources managment policies (Paging, Hard Disk Scheduling, Process Scheduling anyone?) it also means better integration, no added overhead due to the JVM being launched and no need to use COW so the memory requirments dont sky rocket the moment a couple of process (JVM's :-P) are launched.

2. If the above idea is implemented it makes sense to fully integrate the JVM that means no win32 emulation layer :-D (not that i like the idea of a posix emulation layer either).

I do like the idea alot though.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?