From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8C898F89-2D6D-4E1C-9F4E-9060358A421F@gmail.com> References: <31ab45d5d167967b7f2d8295682c11fa@quanstro.net> <8C898F89-2D6D-4E1C-9F4E-9060358A421F@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:44:24 -0700 Message-ID: <3e1162e60909220744m7096a23s5aba6f7eac175bfa@mail.gmail.com> From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd37a7476da0c04742ba21b Subject: Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon Topicbox-Message-UUID: 75099a22-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0cd37a7476da0c04742ba21b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." >>>> >>> >>> So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make >>> things modular. >>> >> >> rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's >> ideas about modular kernels. >> >> this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was >> hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone >> has a better link: >> >> - Microkernels are the way to go >> False unless your only goal is to get papers published. >> Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel >> we know and offers more functionality and comparable >> or often better performance. >> >> > IMHO, that statement applies to existing microkernel implementations (at > the time? perhaps still?) -- its not clear to me that they inherently must > be that way. > Likely their use as "fuel for papers and PhD's" contributed to their bloat. > > -eric > > > At that time, and even today, microkernels are "academically bloated". However some of the more practical academics (yeah I know it's like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence) have spun very interesting things off like OKL4, which is running in several cellular telephones, and on Qualcomm equipment, possibly with a Linux personality ported to it. --000e0cd37a7476da0c04742ba21b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Eric Va= n Hensbergen <eric= vh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:33 PM, erik quanstr= om wrote:

"We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," sa= id Torvalds."

So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make
things modular.

rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's
ideas about modular kernels.

this was a direct response to ast many years ago. =A0it was
hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. =A0perhaps someone
has a better link:

=A0- Microkernels are the way to go
=A0 =A0 =A0 False unless your only goal is to get papers published.
=A0 =A0 =A0 Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkern= el
=A0 =A0 =A0 we know and offers more functionality and comparable
=A0 =A0 =A0 or often better performance.


IMHO, that statement applies to existing microkernel implementations (at th= e time? perhaps still?) -- its not clear to me that they inherently must be= that way.
Likely their use as "fuel for papers and PhD's" contributed t= o their bloat.

=A0 =A0 =A0-eric



At that time, and even today, m= icrokernels are "academically bloated". =A0However some of the mo= re practical academics (yeah I know it's like jumbo shrimp or military = intelligence) have spun very interesting things off like =A0OKL4, which is = running in several cellular telephones, and on Qualcomm equipment, possibly= with a Linux personality ported to it.



--000e0cd37a7476da0c04742ba21b--