Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Morrison wrote:
> Ray Dillinger wrote:
> > means handling dynamic libraries and time-sharing and security
> > and all the other awful details of a "real" operating system,
> > eventually.
> I'm not sure I agree there. I see DLLs/DSOs as poor substitutes for
> dynamic Lisp (or Java) bindings. And who cares about time-sharing in an
> era of $340 PCs?
Well, if by "time-sharing" you mean "multitasking", I care a lot about
it. I don't want to use one $340 PC to generate my fractals, another
$340 PC to connect to my ISP, a third $340 PC to alternately write my
documents and format them with TeX and print them, a little $20
printer-buffer box, and a fourth $340 PC to read my mail and run
mailing lists on (although not both at once, so maybe a fifth.)
> I mean, the GNU HURD has lost out to Linux even if it may have
> been (technically speaking) more of the Right Thing (and also even if
> Linux user-mode code is substantially GNU code).
The design was probably more of the Right Thing. Linux is lots faster,
though, partly due to Mach.
<email@example.com> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
A well designed system must take people into account. . . . It's hard to
build a system that provides strong authentication on top of systems that
can be penetrated by knowing someone's mother's maiden name. -- Schneier