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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
However, since COSA is synchronous, in order to get the full promise of reliable code in a multiprocessor system some way would have tobe found to synchronize the various processes.
This, of course, is the boundary at which all attempts to do pure synchronous programming fall down: when they meet the asynchronous nature of the real world.
Anyone who has ever designed mixed-signal integrated circuits will easily understand why.
Member since:2006-05-09
This, of course, is the boundary at which all attempts to do pure synchronous programming fall down: when they meet the asynchronous nature of the real world.
Not true. The real world is both synchronous and reactive. All reactions are synchronized by a universal clock because the fundamental interval (at the Planck level) is the same for all processes/interactions. The universe is ONE, as its name implies.
Member since:2006-02-15
Not true. The real world is both synchronous and reactive. All reactions are synchronized by a universal clock because the fundamental interval (at the Planck level) is the same for all processes/interactions. The universe is ONE, as its name implies.
This is the wrong forum for debunking quack quantum mechanics, but the uncertainty principle pretty much guarentees on a quantum level that the universe isn't synchronous.
But that doesn't matter, because behavior at a quantum level is not emergent at a macro level, and it's pretty easy to demonstrate that at a macro level the universe remains asynchronous.
If you don't think so, I've got a bluetooth package for you to debug.
Member since:
2006-05-09
If the end result of your 10+ years of effort is just a series of theoretical papers and conceptual drawings, with no actual working software, I have to remain skeptical. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, would it be possible to implement a working model of your ideas given a set of modules and an IPC mechanism in some scripting language, such as Python, Ruby, or even PHP? What page of your website would be the best starting point for this?
As I mention elsewhere, there are already working reactive languages out there, e.g., Esterel, Signal, etc... Project COSA goes much further down to the elementary instruction level. My idea is that COSA should be a graphical environment because software is represented more like a logic circuit. Also, it is easier to get gestalt of a complex program using simple icons. I haven't done any programming on COSA other than a neural network that I use for my AI research (which takes most of my time). I would be happy to work full time on a COSA OS/virtual-machine and dev studio if I could secure enough funds.
As far as distributed computing is concerned, the COSA model is ideal since all elements in COSA are concurrent. However, since COSA is synchronous, in order to get the full promise of reliable code in a multiprocessor system some way would have tobe found to synchronize the various processes. That said, COSA does not prohibit asynchronous processes since it also supports message-passing via queues.