On 10/11/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 12:19:29, Marty wrote:
>Could it be that a modular design for such complex tasks becomes too
>difficult to *do it right*?
I don't know, but I think given its history, the burden of proof is on
monolithic, not modular design. A better question may be whether a
distributed volunteer project can do real system architecture?
(Where is
CERN when you need them?)
Who's history, Linux' (the kernel)? :p
I was thinking of Windows, but opened Pandora's box instead. :/
Couldn't it be that the fact that so many are embracing the "monolithic"
design of systemd is a sign that the modular design was... suboptimal
and nobody came up with a better one?
Umm..... no. In fact the leading edge is going in the other direction.
Examples:
1. smartos (smartos.com) - latest and greatest out of opensolaris land
(lean hypervisor - just enough os to run docker containers)
2. unikernels like mirage (http://www.openmirage.org/) - lean hypervisor
layer to manage machine resources, then each application context is
essentially a container with o/s like functions compiled in as libraries
- os functions as modular libraries, just use those that are needed
3. virtual machine environments that run directly on a thin hypervisor -
Erlang on Xen comes to mind (http://erlangonxen.org/)
4. And there are also attempts to run virtual machines on bare iron
http://kerlnel.org/ (Erlang on bare iron) - and multiple projects that
run Java virtual machines on bare iron
Arguably, the hypervisor layer is monolithic, but we're talking a very
targeted set of functions that are a subset of kernel functions.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543ae813.1020...@meetinghouse.net
