[unios] As I see it . . .

[OJ Hickman]

From: OJ Hickman <hickman1@peak.org>

As I see it these are the basic existing options for kernel design:

1: Monolithic - dinosaur

2: Microkernel - these are naturally very flexible, dynamically
extendible, stable and
enforce a very object oriented type system. (After seeing QNX I have a
hard time finding
any drawbacks to microkernels :) )

3: Exokernels - these can offer the best performance, in theory. But how
can exo be
portable or very stable?

4: Component system - no memory protection, but fast object interaction.
Would require use
of VERY safe languages, safety checking overhead an issue. Could exist
within another system.


Does the kernel matter?

As long as the programming APIs are consistent what does the underlying
kernel matter?
I mean, for example, Linux and the Herd. They are both UNIX systems are
they not? Can't a
properly written C program be compiled to both? But Linux is monolithic
and Herd
microkernel. The APIs, you see, are the important issue.


No kernel?

I think this idea of breaking the kernel into swapable components is
worth farther
consideration. Change the basic concept of what a kernel is.


________________________________________
James - hickman1@peak.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UniOS Group
http://members.xoom.com/unios