Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:00:27 -0400 | From | Scott Robert Ladd <> | Subject | Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model |
| |
asdfd esadd wrote: > So let me restate the need: > > * a unified well architected core component model > which is extensible from OS services to application > objects > > * the object model should be defined from the kernel > layer for process/events/devices etc. up and not > started at the application layer
A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. But in today's reality, an OS-based object model provides a singular target for malicious attack.
The theory of reusable binary components is seductive, yet it leads to many of the flaws seen in Windows. All too often, Windows applications install components which may be newer or even older than the ones they replace; while Microsoft has made strides with component versioning, the problem still exists. These days, many Windows applications ship their own version of "common" components, to avoid incompatibilities with whatever may be installed system-wide.
OS-based object models also suffer from bit rot. New hardware and software features require API changes, such that older objects gradually become incompatible with newer requirements.
Windows also has the advantage of focusing on a single hardware platform, where Linux runs on an incredible variety of systems.
Were Linux to implement an object model, it would need careful and considerate design to address security, versioning, extensibility, and portability.
-- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |