Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 25th Aug 2006 23:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 156053
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-20
I'd say the article's on the right track in that the monolithic system model's becoming unsustainable: *not* the kernel, but the system as a whole, but comes to the wrong conclusion with the "modular architecture tied together through hardware-supported virtualisation". As MS has tightened up the configuration options on it's OSes it's added more and more "flavours" of windows. XP had enough variants but we've got what 16 or something Vista variants coming out? each with a strictly defined profile and basically MS preselected installation options. MS admitted as much a while ago that for it's server line it's going to have to modularise the OS. Virtualisation might be a module, but not the basis of the modularity (*requiring* virtualisation would be insane). MS is having to compete with Linux/BSD's configurability, and while for the moment MS is reacting by having dozens of product lines, eventually they'll collapse back down to a highly configurable & modular base product (like Linux/BSD) simply for simplicity's sake.