On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:08:17PM -0500, Alec wrote: > > During the famous > > Linus/Tanenbaum debates of 10 years or so ago, Tanenbaum said that if > > Linux had been written for one of his OS classes, it would have received > > a failing grade (due to its monolithic kernel architecture). > > Just goes to show that "worse is better".
In some ways, maybe, but Tanenbaum's points were perfectly valid. He was complaining that Linux was monolithic and tied to the x86 architecture. Linux has incorporated basic features of microkernel design (the opposite of monolithic) with the concept of loadable kernel modules. It has also addressed the x86 issue by abstracting away from a specific architecture, and is now one of the most portable operating systems available. An OS designed from the ground up to be a portable microkernel would be very cool, though. I look forward to trying out the Hurd kernel at some point. It's important to remember that Linux is not, and will not be, perfect. (Remember: "All software sucks, only the degree to which it sucks varies.") noah -- _______________________________________________________ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
pgpL1V68dNHvZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
