Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Dec 2005 14:57 UTC, submitted by mlauzon
Windows "Microsoft will move the graphics for its next version of Windows outside of the operating system's kernel to improve reliability, the software giant has told Techworld. Vista's graphics subsystem, codenamed Avalon and formally known as the Windows Presentation Foundation, will be pulled out the kernel because many lock-ups are the result of the GUI freezing, Microsoft infrastructure architect Giovanni Marchetti told us exclusively yesterday."
Thread beginning with comment 74139
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: How about linux
by SEJeff on Fri 16th Dec 2005 15:21 UTC in reply to "How about linux"
SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

Linux is NOT a microkernel. Andy Tannenbaum (the guy who wrote minix and is a college professor) told Linus Torvalds he would fail his class.

How often Mr. Anonymous, do the network drivers crash the system in Linux? I've been using it in mission critical servers in the travel industry (where I'm a systems admin) with 0 problems in the past few years.

Tell me 1 *real* operating system that has a TCP/IP stack outside of the kernel? As much as Andy touts it, minix is still just a toy. GNU/Hurd is a microkernel and look what it is now, a big flop.

On technical merits, a microkernel is superior to a monolithic one. On implementation and performance, a microkernel is too slow with increased latency to be practical for many applications.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: How about linux
by rayiner on Fri 16th Dec 2005 15:26 in reply to "RE: How about linux"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Tell me 1 *real* operating system that has a TCP/IP stack outside of the kernel?

QNX. Now *that's* an OS for mission critical systems!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: How about linux
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 16th Dec 2005 15:26 in reply to "RE: How about linux"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Tell me 1 *real* operating system that has a TCP/IP stack outside of the kernel?

QNX is a true, proper microkernel operating system, and is also one of the most succesfull embedded operating systems available today. It powers most medical equipment like fMRI scanners, for instance. QNX also operates the space shuttle's arm.

On technical merits, a microkernel is superior to a monolithic one. On implementation and performance, a microkernel is too slow with increased latency to be practical for many applications.

That might have been true 15 years ago, when computers had limited resources. However, in these times, the overhead causes by the excessive communication between stuff outside of the kernel is neglicable because of our powerful computers. The overhead argument today in the muK vs. monolithic debate is void.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: How about linux
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 16:05 in reply to "RE[2]: How about linux"
Member since:

QNX is a real time system, and real time system are not the one with mayor throuputs. They are fast working with many small incoming loads but it's slow with big ones.

Now, modularity is good, but the process isolation given by current processor it's too much overhead (a new design can help).

there are other techniques to achieve modularity like this: http://goos.sourceforge.net/overview.php

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: How about linux
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 15:31 in reply to "RE: How about linux"
Member since:

And how about QNX?

http://www.qnx.com/products/rtos/microkernel.html

Microkernel, TCP/IP in Userspace, real... there you go :-)

AZ

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: How about linux
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 16:12 in reply to "RE: How about linux"
Member since:

Don't know about network stack, but there is one example which would fit just as well.

The new audio stack in Vista is entirely in user space, and infact it is going to be faster than DirectSound simply for the fact that new APIs in Vista allows DMA mapped to user space, whereby user-space clients do not have to cake through layers of kernel code before ending up on the sound hardware, reducing latency significantly.

Thus, the principle of microkernel in this case is actually more advantageous if done right.

Latency issue is not inherent to microkernel design, it is inherent to a bad microkernel design.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: How about linux
by oxygene on Sat 17th Dec 2005 08:55 in reply to "RE[2]: How about linux"
oxygene Member since:
2005-07-07

even then, the miniport driver still has to reflect it into userspace (a simple MMU operation, but that could have been done with a kernelspace driver, too)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: How about linux
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 16:37 in reply to "RE: How about linux"
Member since:

Hmmm.... Have you looked at QNX?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: How about linux
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 18:35 in reply to "RE[2]: How about linux"
Member since:

Now, after a dozen of "Have you ever heard of QNX?" comments, I have only one thing in mind: 2006 will be the year of desktop QNX.

Now, for real, back to the topic: why would Linux need to have network stack outside kernel?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: How about linux
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 18:50 in reply to "RE: How about linux"
Member since:

> "Tell me 1 *real* operating system that has a TCP/IP stack outside of the kernel?"

Microsoft Windows CE

Reply Parent Score: 0