I'm sorry to follow up the thread here, as i am not
subscribed to LIG (can't keep up with the traffic :(
).
I have a few corrections to make
--- Soumyanath Chatterjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Linux had followed Minix, the idea of open source
> was also there in Minix
> but there are many differences:
>
> 1. Minix had a micro kernel design and Linux has a
> monolithic design
Accordingh to me, Linux has a hybrid design. It cannot
be called monolithic as it gives us the oportunity to
load modules as and when they are required. And we
can't call it micro, as we have the option of
compiling the module along with the kernel... so i beg
to differ here...
> 2. Minix was cross hardware design but Linux was
> specific to intel chips
> (only recently it has been modified for other chips
> as well)
>
I think the definition of "recently" can be debated
here.
> Minix had a better design, but the aim was for
> teaching. Whereas Linux was
> designed to be a main stream O/S monolithic design
> or otherwise.
>
this is 100% correct. AFAIK, Minix was used to teach
Univ. students O/S concepts...
> So the relation of Minix and Linux is more of a
> teacher and student
> (influence wise).
>
That's what i meant in my email too. So calling Minix
a cut down version of Linux is not fair, as the
teacher (Minix here) should be given due respect, as
Minix is the reason Linus could give us the most
brialliant hack of all time - Linux. :)
Nikhil.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on this and other Linux India mailing lists check out
http://lists.linux-india.org/
