Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Jun 2009 19:51 UTC, submitted by Kaj de Vos
Syllable, AtheOS

Kristian Van Der Vliet has implemented asynchronous input/output. This has been tested with QEmu, which shows increased performance both due to this and the also new implementation of memory-mapped files. A development build with async I/O is already available.

Thread beginning with comment 367343
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

For an OS like Syllable it's also a practical advantage that allows us to get very good, very thin, vertical integration. Syllable does not have many layers of indirection that you get with Linux, and we do not need to co-ordinate our efforts across disparate groups of developers if we want to add functionality that spans the kernel, system libraries and user-space. This is one of the things that allow us to keep Syllable lightweight.

I just can't help thinking a "tuned" Linux kernel would be the way to go, even if you avoided all the indirection layers in userspace (X, Xlib, Gtk...). Obviously much of the fun may be in messing with the kernel, but I can't imagine Linux kernel couldn't be made to support all the features Syllable kernel has, while still retaining the benefits of industry-supported codebase (drivers etc.).

Using relatively "standard" components is also a good insurance against sudden stagnation (and other work going to waste) if/when key developers find themselves with no time to contribute anymore (family, work, being hit by bus, ...).

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:

Linux kernel does more-or-less all the same stuff already that the Syllable-kernel does as far as I can see, and probably those things that it doesn't do could be implemented in modules.. Atleast one benefit would be the huge amount of drivers that Linux kernel ships with. Just trim the kernel and leave out those features that aren't used in Syllable?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Vanders Member since:

If we used a different kernel, we would have to re-implement everything we already have and then we would be at the mercy of a third party.

A software monoculture is bad. There is plenty of space for more than one kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 2