[ILUG] It's illegal, according to the barrister in PC World

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Smelly Pooh (plop at redbrick.dcu.ie):

> For the sake of hypothetical discussion lets say that QNX's microkernel
> were to be made available to OS implementers (be it in the form of
> licensing or open source).  Now you have a guaranteed stable and
> efficient microkernel to start from, and you can write priveleged
> servers on top of that to provide OS level services.  

Yes, that _could_ be great.

Depending on how maintainable the code is.  Remember, getting
microkernel-based systems to function reliably and well is tricky, 
and may well have been a rare, talented (and stubborn!) accomplishment
of a small team who happen to work exactly the right way.  Having that
already accomplished in a codebase's existing state is a major win, but
one that could be lost if a surrounding community of coders had
difficulty keeping it that way, as it is further developed.

Even in the open-source world, we sometimes have examples of impressive
utilities that die or degenerate because of difficulty maintaining them.

> Back to the original topic though, which approach should the college
> course on OSs take?

Well, considering that _every_ significant consumer OS other than those
from Microsoft Corporation is now a *ix variant, at the minimum it seems 
shortsighted to study none of them.  Add to that the fact that, beyond
the most cursory examination, you need source code access, I think it 
clear that any sufficiently in-depth course should cover at least one of
the following:

{Free|Net|Open}BSD
Apple Darwin
{Linux|mklinux|minix}  <== note microkernels
Unix Version 6, via the Lions book and Caldera-provided USL code

-- 
Cheers,                              "Azathoth need not be present to win."
Rick Moen                                       -- Charles O. Baucum, Jr.
rick at linuxmafia.com