In reply to Rick Moen's flatulent wordings,
> Quoting Smelly Pooh (plop at redbrick.dcu.ie):
>> > I wouldn't consider something a failed fad just because it hasn't hit the
> > mainstream, nor would I consider something a good design because it has.
> > For example VB is quite big, but its design is terrible, same with PERL.
> > Really ingenius designs such as ML or Haskell are still stuck in
> > academics.
>> The difference is that microkernels have been a spectacular failure in
> large, well-funded, mainstream projects.
This isn't a a feature of microkernels. Large, well-funded, mainstream
monolithic kernel projects such as MULTICS have been known to fail also.
> About the same time, FSF was, of course, making the same error -- but
> with much less manpower and funding. And none of the other microkernel
> efforts ever got very far, either, except maybe QNX and (briefly) BeOS.
>> But the proof's in the pudding: The great, breakthrough
> microkernel-based OS may be Just Around the Corner<tm>.
BeOS was well designed and I liked it, I haven't used QNX but I'm told
it's very efficient and flexible, and Mac OS X (more specifically the
underlying Darwin OS) is based on a Mach microkernel. What exactly do
microkernel architectures have to do before they're not failures?
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!