Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Apr 2006 15:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 115322
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 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
Great article.
In my experience, microkernel systems have better stability and are usually faster to general-propose operations (no really talking about automation systems, like car-building Robots' operation systems, and similar situations...), like a desktop operational system. Maybe it's the kind of standard organization that the system works around; but still in the end, better systems (talking about the practical results).
Another problem these days that microkernels help with, are licensing problems. Since binary compatibility is much easier to maintain as the kernel itself doesn't change too much. So, as the system "talks" a single language, code don't need to "touch" other (license's) code and the user don't need to worry about this kind of problems, it's easier to have everything "just working"...