On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Creative Minds wrote: > Obviously the Linux Kernel is pretty old and based on some really old > ideas and is uhm, well tested and all but just plain old... > > Has anyone of you thought of working on a kernel based on science from > later than the 80's? NewOS/OpenBeOS (www.openbeos.org) for instance? The design points you're arguing about have been argued to death in the 1990's. Monolithic kernels with loadable device drivers and an object-oriented driver model have won the 1980's arguments. The current design arguments seem to be: 1) interrupt threads vs. running interrupts in process context 2) preemptible vs. non-preemptible kernel 3) spinlocks vs. sleeping locks 4) 1:1 threading vs. M:N threading Welcome to the year 2000 ;) kind regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com";>october@surriel.com</a> -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
