--- Ian Zagorskih <ianzag@megasignal.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 02
July 2003 15:15, Nathan Langford wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In college, there was a lot of talk about microkernels being
> ideologically
> > superior to traditional monolithic kernels, but everything I've
> read about
> > real-world implementations seems to point to problems with message
> passing
> > inefficiencies.  Even so-called microkernel OS X seems to deviate
> greatly
> > from the microkernel paradigm in order to make Mach work in the
> real
> > world.  Given NetBSD's focus on technical elegance, what do people
> here
> > think about the supposed superiority of microkernels.
> >
> > -Nathan
> 
> Before NetBSD i worked alot with microkernel OS QNX4 and i cannot say
> it's 
> supperior or not. Just another ideology. Every architecture has it's
> own 
> benefits and weak sides.

Yes, but some architectures are better than others, despite all having
benefits and weaknesses (of course everyone has differing opinions on
which ones are better). Would you like to replace your modern
multitasking OS with CP/M or DOS 3.3 - after all everything has
strengths and weaknesses? It depends on what you want to do with the
OS. So what are microkernels well suited for as compared to monolithic
systems? In what cases would you opt for one over the other?

> 
> -- 
> JSC Novosibirsk Geophysical Equipment Development Center.
> WEB	http://www.megasignal.com
>  

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca