Re: LINUX is obsolete Linux Inside
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: LINUX is obsolete

 In article <1992Feb08.091339.16121@donau.et.tudelft.nl> wolff@neuron.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff) writes:
 > The problem is that to really do an unbiased test you would need two
 > *identical* teams, and ask them to make two OS's [...]
 
 No, you don't. I don't think there's any question that a macrokernel is
 very easy to get decent performance out of. Where the microkernel design
 has a major advantage is in flexibility. Adding stuff to a macrokernel
 is fairly complex and quickly becomes pretty gross. Look at BSD or System V
 for examples. Adding stuff to a well designed microkernel is VERY easy.
 
 Sometimes you don't want to compare oranges and oranges. Sometimes you want
 to compare concentrated orange juice with fresh-squeezed. Fresh-squeezed
 takes longer, but it's worth it.
 
 Plus, with a microkernel you can get much better context switching between
 microtasks than macro processes. So you can do stuff in separate processes
 that would be out of the question in a macrokernel, and avoid nonsense like
 the myriad inconsistencies in NFS.
 
 > anyone have an opinion about why the code for printf
 > is included three times in the Minix OS when it runs (once in the 
 > kernel, MM and FS)
 
 Anyone have an opinion why the code for printf is included only once in
 AmigaOS (even though the AmigaOS 2.04 "kernel" is actually a dozen or
 more separate processes)?
 
 Minix is a poor technology demonstrator for microkernels. Which is OK, since
 it wasn't supposed to be one.
 -- 
 -- Peter da Silva,  Ferranti International Controls Corporation
 -- Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  +1 713 274 5180
 -- "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
 
 
 
 Newsgroups: comp.os.minix