Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2006 21:25 UTC, submitted by luzr
OSNews, Generic OSes Torvalds has indeed chimed in on the micro vs. monolithic kernel debate. Going all 1992, he says: "The whole 'microkernels are simpler' argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. The whole argument that microkernels are somehow 'more secure' or 'more stable' is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure. And the argument that you can 'just reload' a failed service and not take the whole system down is equally flawed." My take: While I am not qualified to reply to Linus, there is one thing I want to say: just because it is difficult to program, does not make it the worse design.
Thread beginning with comment 122824
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The Hidden Nature of Software
by Mapou on Tue 9th May 2006 22:38 UTC
Mapou
Member since:
2006-05-09

Linus may know Linux but he does not understand the hidden nature of software. If he did, he would know that basing software construction on the algorithm is the real reason for the current crisis. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem would disappear. Of course, in such an environment, every application becomes a simple extension of the system and there is no operating system per se.

We need to start seeing a program for what it really is, a communication system. During execution, every statement or instruction in an algorithmic procedure essentially sends a signal to the next statement, saying: 'I'm done, now it's your turn.' A statement should be seen as an elementary object having a single input and a single output. It waits for an input signal, does something, and then sends an output signal to the next object. Multiple objects are linked together to form a one-dimensional (single path) sequential chain. The problem is that, in an algorithm, communication is limited to only two objects at a time, a sender and a receiver. Consequently, even though there may be forks (conditional branches) along the way, a signal may only take one path at a time.

This is one of the reasons that we need to move to a signal-based synchronous, signal-based model.

Reply Score: 2

blahblah Member since:
2006-03-23

ROTFL.
So why wasn't this:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm

accomplished anything?

Freaking washed-up, rehashed, neural network AI people.

pffft.

The best quote:
"What follows is a list of prominent individuals that I consider to be the real enemies of reliable software even though they all profess otherwise. These people are doing the computer industry and the world a great disservice. They are using their positions of authority to perpetuate a myth, and a very harmful myth at that. They have built a personality cult around [Frederick] Brooks and his fallacious doctrine just as they have done with Alan Turing over the years."

well, gee, the damn Turing guy and his machines. If it wasn't for him, all our software would rock!

Reply Parent Score: 2

Mapou Member since:
2006-05-09

ahahaha... Thanks. Any publicity is good publicity.

Reply Parent Score: 1

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

You may mock signal-based programming, but why don't you try writing some examples yourself in an imaginary language and see the benefits? application writing becomes much easier with signal-based programming.

I admit the guys at rebelscience.org are a little over-the-top concerning the rest of their stuff, but I can not say that they haven't hit the nail in the head with the signal-based programming model.

Reply Parent Score: 1

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Although most of the users would reply with a "WTF" to your post, your post is quite correct. Unfortunately it would take many years for people to realize that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Mapou Member since:
2006-05-09

Although most of the users would reply with a "WTF" to your post, your post is quite correct. Unfortunately it would take many years for people to realize that.

Thanks for the support. I've been promoting signal-based computing for over 10 years and it's only recently that I've begun to make a dent in the existing paradigm. It's amazing what years of brainwashing in schools can do to us humans. It makes us blind. But this a fight that we must all win because the software reliability crisis is very real and extremely dangerous.

Reply Parent Score: 1