Re: LINUX is obsolete Linux Inside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Re: LINUX is obsolete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