> to put it in one line - would you rather start teaching computer
> programming with BASIC or PL/1 ?
I would rather learn with C than BASIC or PL/1
and how many others say the same?
> > IIRC, M$'s own kernel ( Win2k or Win2k3 ) resembles a microkernel. yes,
> > they too are apparent aware of the positive aspects of the microkernel.
>
> Oh, and where did you get info from, please do post a link.
Find it yourself! Its on MSDN or Technet or google or somewhere!! :P
If are you talking about Singularity - yes its good to see them
looking at design seriously. i hope they do the same for honest
business as well.
> then why the ranting against AST?
Because I'm a Linus fan boiii, get it? :)
:-)
> given time and effort there WILL be more contenders. To assume there
> would be none is VERY dogmatic.
Given enough time and effort pigs will fly and we'll have perpetual
motion machines.
*sigh*
Go back and read my posts, I never said that Linux is _the_ kernel for
GNU. Yes, eventually, there _will_ be a better replacement for the Linux
kernel or maybe Linux may evolve into a true microkernel. Who knows? I
never discounted the possibility, did I?
> but you discounted the probability of a microkernel based future entirely.
No I didnt.
<quote>
The way people talk about microkernels being the salvation of the
modern operating
systems drives me up the wall.
</quote>
> By giving stupid comparisons you HAVE tried to trivialize AST which is
> unforgivable.
Oh so sue me! :/ I've my opinions, just like you have and I have full
right to express them.
trivializing on basesless points is malicious and it is my right to counter it.
Just cuz you worship AST doesnt mean that the
rest of the universe does too...
i don't worship AST, but i don't agree your Linus - Spanish Inquesition either.
> Would anyone be dumb enough to say : ``Don Knuth is a genius at
> algorithms and created TeX but since its not being practically used as
> much Micro$oft Office that makes him mearly a theory guy".
This is a really flawed analogy.
you were insisting on the popularity bit hence the analogy
Both TeX and M$ Office are _working_
and _matured_ products. TeX is far far older, agreed. While a true,
working microkernel is still a long way from reality.
QNX - On Cisco routers
reference :
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=53319
Integrity - One of the leading operating systems in the military and
aerospace markets, where reliability is absolutely critical
PikeOS - a microkernel-based real-time system widely used in defense,
aerospace, automotive, and industrial applications.
Singularity - A M$ funded project by Galen Hunt and Jim Larus, who
well understand that Windows is a mess and a new approach is needed.
K42 - About 10 years ago IBM began developing a new high-performance
operating system from scratch for its very large customers. An
explicit design goal was to move system functionality from the kernel
to servers and application programs, similar to a microkernel. This
system, called K42, has now been deployed at the DoE and elsewhere.
Its in the making but as I said _repeatedly_, todays technology makes it
exponentially difficult for us to write a microkernel. Why do think
theres no "commercial" microkernel? I'm very well aware of its benefits
but despite that we dont see one around, do we? :/
QNX, Integrity, PikeOS, Singularity, and K42
> i'm still not understanding why you feel like that?
Stop trying to understand my "feelings" :P
Done.
Regards,
- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
