To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The first thing I'd do in building any desktop operating system (if I had the skills) was to use QNX as a base. Fully transparent distributed computing, a true microkernel (none of that monolithic crap), a super-efficient and tiny (in all senses of the word) fully accelerated display server, self-healing and self-recovery in all layers and components of the system...
It's a piece of genius. Nothing comes even CLOSE - certainly not hodgepodges like Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
Isn't QNX a major player in the embedded space (machinery, aerospace, etc, where there is zero fault tolerance) as well?
And yes, QNX and Symbian are two great examples of highly successful micro kernel OS's. Also, MacOS and iOS are based on the Mach micro kernel, and employ at least partial micro kernel design.
People often think that since Linux won over the failed (so far) Hurd project, and that Minix was only an academic OS, that the debate between monolithic kernels and micro kernels was over, and monolithic won.
But obviously that is not the case. Both have been successful.





Member since:
2005-07-06
Thanks for the correction - there is this horrible trendy I see these days of people equating Linux to UNIX that they are being used interchangeably by people without the slightest understanding that one doesn't mean the other. I even see people claim that Mac OS X is based on Linux! everytime I see such posts I die a little inside.
True which kinda goes back to SkyOS and how personally I would have preferred to see him use a *BSD core of some sort then create a custom interface, display server and so forth on top so that the value can be added by not being 'yet another *NIX for the desktop'. I wish I had the development skills because that would be the first thing I'd do - take the FreeBSD core, build on a new display server and interface then develop it from there.