On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:53 +0530, Vihan Pandey wrote: > > IIRC, M$'s own kernel ( Win2k or Win2k3 ) resembles a microkernel. yes, > > they too are apparent aware of the positive aspects of the microkernel. > > Oh, and where did you get info from, please do post a link.
Did you even read the link that you gave me? Quoting the link that you gave me ( http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/reliable-os/ ) : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows NT 3.1 was a half-hearted attempt at a microkernel system, but it wasn't done right and the performance wasn't good enough on the hardware of the early 1990s, so it gave up on the idea for a while. But recently, it tried again on modern hardware, resulting in Singularity. Now I know that a lot of people assume that if Microsoft did it, it must be stupid, but the people who drove the Singularity project, Galen Hunt and Jim Larus, are very smart cookies, and they well understand that ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its RIGHT THERE! In the article itself, Windows NT! It may not be tons of info but it would've definitely stopped you from making that remark you made! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows is a mess and a new approach is needed. Even the people working on Vista see they have a problem and are moving drivers into user space, precisely what I am advocating. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geez...does he even know what a MESS Vista really is?? It was a big FAT /ENGINEERING/ failure! They have about 10% of the features that they had originally planned... Next time, please do read up well before entering into such debates. Such 'goof ups' really discredit you..! -- Regards, Dinesh A. Joshi -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
