All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Kill Bill's Browser
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H ---If Linux came from Minix, why isn't it a multi-server microkenel ?
--- End quote ---
Linux didn't come from Minix (well the name did, that's it). Minix sucked ass. The guy(s) who developed it developed it for educational purposes, so students could easily understand how everything worked. They also charged for it, which some people didn't like.
The GNU Hurd also sucked (to quote ESR, "it was already clear
that HURD had become an exercise in intellectual masturbation"). So people had a wonderful mostly-GNU userland and a shit kernel. Linus Torvalds, in Finland, got himself a 386 CPU (or something) and in an effort to learn more about how it worked and all, he started work on a kernel for it. He called it Linux after Minix, and it took off. It's a monolithic kernel because it's simpler that way, it's not hard to get the advantages of single-server microkernel with it (e.g. with modules), and because microkernels were really complicated to debug (not really true anymore. Alot has changed since 1991.), etc. Linus Torvalds kinda violently hates the microkernel philosophy, especially the Hurd.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---And then I'd pop in and say "NT is a single-server microkernel, and Linux has basically all the (technical and non-technical) benefits of that already. Single-server microkernels are basically equal to well-designed monolithic kernels (like Linux). If NT was a multi-server microkenel like the Hurd or Minix, and it worked well, it could have functionality that Linux couldn't dream off without a complete redesign and a few sloppy hacks. NT would be technically superior to Linux, there would be no question.".
--- End quote ---
Right so Hurd and Minux are technically superiour to Linux, if this is true then why doesn't anyone use them?
H_TeXMeX_H:
Because they suck ... the well written Linux/GNU kernel is better than the badly written Hurd and Minux kernels ... and NT, of course ... it's actually a "hybrid" kernel.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Right so Hurd and Minux are technically superiour to Linux, if this is true then why doesn't anyone use them?
--- End quote ---
I never said they were technically superior. Minix definetly isn't and probably never will be, unless someone else does the job for them. Minix is for educational purposes only.
The Hurd on gnumach works but it sucks (gnumach isn't a great microkernel anymore.). It crashes under the smallest of loads. It's not secure. It's drivers come from Linux 2.2 (i.e. not alot of supported hardware, no recent hardware.).
They're in the process of porting the Hurd to a different microkernel, L4Ka::Pistachio. Nothing much works yet though, you can boot it up and a wonderful 'banner' program automatically runs and prints some text to the screen. There's no filesystem or anything though. It's unusable.
You would want to be insane to suggest either of Minix or the Hurd on either gnumach or L4 to be technically superior to Linux. Minix is barely usable, the Hurd isn't even.
However, I imagine if the Hurd is ever complete (or even ready), on L4 or some other microkernel (there's actually talk about switching microkernels, again), there won't be a question about which is technically superior between it and Linux.
The Hurd will do things Linux can't dream of (at least not without a redesign). For example, persistance (probably, depends on if the developers actually do this, but apparantly doing this will make other things easier, and it seems like right now they're up for it.), which means that any time there's a power cut or something, or you shut down the system, you can continue from right where you left off, basically immediatly (after BIOS, bootloader, and that). That and a few other things (translators (which already work), for example) would make it technically superior to Linux. And them things are only so easy because of it's wonderful multi-server microkernel design.
Aloone_Jonez:
Exactly even though Minux and Hurd have a better design model it doesn't make them technically superiour to Linux. The same goes for Firefox, even though XUL may be a better design model it doesn't make Firefox technically superior to Opera.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version