Re: microkernels (I'm not a huge fan of systemd)
On 07/15/2014 01:30 PM, russ wrote:
On 07/15/2014 11:32 AM, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 07/15/2014 10:37 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:36:54 +0000
Bonno Bloksma <email@example.com> wrote:
Steve Litt wrote at 2014-07-11 11:21 -0500:
A bizarre thought just popped into my head, in the form of a
little voice. The little voice told me that if they guys who
controlled the decision to go to systemd had been the decision
makers in 1990, Linux would have a microkernel today.
Regarding history and microkernels, this document about the
reliability features of Minix is very interesting:
Hmm, very nice to read. It proves that an inherent stable OS using a
microkernel design is possible. And they even build and tested it in
Yes, that article was surprisingly logical and laid out the case for a
microkernel extremely well. I hereby take back my original statement.
The microkernel is 5K lines of code. I have a feeling that systemd has a
few more lines of code than that.
It would be interesting to read Linus's comments on MicroKernels...and
why Linux is the way it is. Has he ever commented ?
Here's a link to a discussion between Linus and Tanenbaum.
Interesting but I wonder just how much of it is relevant today ? This
took place **22 years** ago. And even the intro to the usenet
discussion shows its age...with the person writing that it took place
when names like Netscape and Excite were household words :)
1984 was not meant as a blueprint for