Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 19:54 UTC, submitted by Gary
OSNews, Generic OSes The micro vs. monolithic kernel debate is now very much alive. Not too long ago, I wrote an article on the merits of microkernels, while a week later we featured a retort. Now, the greatest proponent of the microkernel steps in-- yes, Andy Tanenbaum writes: "Microkernels - long discarded as unacceptable because of their lower performance compared with monolithic kernels - might be making a comeback in operating systems due to their potentially higher reliability, which many researchers now regard as more important than performance." Now, we only need Torvalds to chime in, and it's 1992 all over again.
Thread beginning with comment 121438
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by ProteusQ on Fri 5th May 2006 20:42 UTC
Member since:

In others words, he's saying, "I was wrong 16 years ago, but THIS TIME I'm right!"

When Minix even begins to start to have a sliver of the *NIX market, then I'll believe him.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmmm...
by CharAznable on Fri 5th May 2006 21:20 in reply to "Hmmm..."
CharAznable Member since:

I don't believe Minix was ever intended to capture any sort of measure of real-world market share. For what Minix is (or was), basically a tool to teach students about OS design, it does a formidable job.

Tanenbaum's argumens are fundamentally right, but his vision of the future was made on flawed assumptions such as:

-GNU Hurd would be available soon. 15 years later it still isn't.

-People would ditch x86 for superior architectures. 15 years later, it's clear that x86 won, at least in the personal computing market. But you can't hardly blame him for failing to forsee the rise of Microsoft and the formidable power of having to run legacy software.

His version of the future was a bit idealized.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Hmmm...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 21:23 in reply to "RE: Hmmm..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

His version of the future was a bit idealized.

Yes, but let's be real in that EVERYONE thought that way back then. Read the AST/Linus flamewar, and you'll notice that Linus too thought the i386 arch. was going to be ditched soon enough.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Hmmm...
by s_groening on Sat 6th May 2006 11:37 in reply to "Hmmm..."
s_groening Member since:

I believe there are stille people out there that might tout OS/2 as being technically superior to ALL Windows versions until Windows NT 4.0 and possibly even past that point in time...

However, the market share of OS/2 never was the argument for its strengths and it never will be.

Instead it was a question of the object oriented design of the WorkPlace Shell, WPS, the stability and performance of the kernel's multitasking and multithreading capabilities that made up its merits.

the same thing might very well be the case of Minix vs Unix - Minix might do things RIGHT in certain areas where Unix fare worse, however, market share has never been the compelling argument.

...In such a case, Windows would be considered better than Unix at any given time... Which I fimly believe it is not!

Reply Parent Score: 3