Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 21, 2004 04:51 AM
its the microkernel issue. There seems to be a lot of very smart people which say that a microkernel is far superior to a monolithic kernel like the Linux one. Ok. I can think of two: 1) Hurd and 2) MINIX (it does exist, right?!). But neither Hurd not MINIX have gotten very far (last time I checked - Hurd does not even support sound, nevermind USB). So my question is: (keep in mind that I am kernel newbie!) what is so damn hard about making microkerels work andm if they are so hard to implement, why are they considered 'superior'?!
If you could point me to some litterature of give me a not too techie answer I would really appreciate it!
Thanks!
PS: is it true that either Mac or Mac OSX are based on microkernels? (I read that somewhere) What about *BSD? Or proprietaries unices?!
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
request for comments (of sorts)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 21, 2004 04:51 AMBut neither Hurd not MINIX have gotten very far (last time I checked - Hurd does not even support sound, nevermind USB).
So my question is: (keep in mind that I am kernel newbie!) what is so damn hard about making microkerels work andm if they are so hard to implement, why are they considered 'superior'?!
If you could point me to some litterature of give me a not too techie answer I would really appreciate it!
Thanks!
PS: is it true that either Mac or Mac OSX are based on microkernels? (I read that somewhere) What about *BSD? Or proprietaries unices?!
#