Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 May 1999 22:55:41 +0100 | From | David Leal <> | Subject | is Linux obsolete? |
| |
Hello,
may be this question is off-topic. I'm somewhat of a newbie to this kernel development thing, so excuse my ignorance still, I think it may be an interesting issue for people to think about.
I stumbled at the discussion that happened between Linus and Prof. Tanenbaum in 1992 (some people here probably where there at that time, yesterday was the first time I read it). Hylarious predictions aside (Prof. Tanenbaum predicted that in 1997 everybody would be running GNU HURD in their 200 MIPS, 64M Sparcstation-5 :) there was a lot being said about monolithic kernels vs microkernels. I noticed most OSes being developed today are microkernel based, e. g. Windows NT, GNU HURD, BeOS... Looking at this, and realizing that Linux IS based on a system which is 30 years old I ask the following question: How viable is Linux? Are we (well, I mean you, because, as much as I would like, I haven't contributed anything to the kernel yet) going in the right directions? Please understand I am not intending to insult any of you in any way whatsoever, as I am a Linux user and thank you all for everything you have made possible. I am just asking a question (a pertinent one, in my newbie's eyes). Is Linux going the right way? Not only the issue about monolithic vs microkernel etc, etc, as I don't even understand fully both concepts, but I ask this as a general issue. Even though Linux is having a lot of success, even though it's stable and fast, etc, is it going in the right direction? If this is just too stupid, please just ignore it.
Cheers,
David
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |