From: buck@wic.waterloo.shl.com (Charlie Krasic) Subject: Re: NT vs Linux (was: Re: truth or dare) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 01:03:18 GMT
In article <BUHR.93Jul9182106@ccu.umanitoba.ca> buhr@umanitoba.ca (Kevin Andrew Buhr) writes:
In article <1993Jul8.041711.24937@muug.mb.ca> rgallen@muug.mb.ca
(Rennie Allen) writes:
|
| Linux is a monolithic kernel essentially
| no different from the OS's of the early 70's. UNIX's excuse is that it was
| developed in the early 70's; what's Linuxs' ?
That it's a Unix clone, perhaps? Face it. The vast majority of
computer systems in use today are running monolithic kernels.
DOS/Windows 3.1, MacOS 7, SunOS (and most flavours of Unix), Netware
4.0---these are all monolithic operating systems, right?
Maybe Tanenbaum misled me, but it seems that the newest crop of PC
operating systems are all monolithic, too. OS/2 2.1 is monolithic.
And if you take a drawing of a monolithic kernel, pencil in lines for
layers, and label various parts "subsystems", you'll have a schematic
of Win NT. The only message-passing microkernel I can think of that
anyone's using is Minix, and I don't even know that first hand.
What does NeXTStep look like under the hood?
Kevin Buhr <buhr@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
We're using an OS called QNX. It's a high-performace UNIX like OS which
has some really nifty features...and its based fundementally on a
message passing microkernel design...
Also, AmigaDOS does a lot of things right. Big missing feature there
is protected memory...sigh.
-- Buck