Nick Sayer wrote:
>
> Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
>
> > Why not starting a microkernel arch?
>
> IMHO the microkernel is the emperor's new clothes (so is OOP, but that,
> I suspect, I won't
> get quite so much agreement on).
>
> Context switching has been mentioned, but in addition to that, the real
> problem is that it
> really doesn't change anything. It may somewhat simplify a non-critical
> driver like a serial
> port or a mouse or the like, but if a SCSI HBA driver crashes, it's
> likely going to make
> life for the microkernel very hairy, just like it would a full kernel.
>
> And a driver bug can cause the hardware to wedge the machine whether the
> driver is in
> protected or user mode too.
>
> Most people who I talk to who bring up microkernel do it because they
> see the process of compiling
> a FreeBSD kernel and think that microkernels are somehow the opposite of
> that. If that's the
> case, they should believe that Solaris is a microkernel, which it
> patently is not.
>
> NT comes closer, with its rings of protection, but you can hardly call
> that a picture of
> stabiliy.
Yeah! I had started to study OS (UNIX Internals: the new frontiers)
internals. That book tell the same about microkernel, but when i
downloaded QNX demo disk i got confused.
If microkernel has such a drawnbacks, why QNX is so fast and reliable?
Should you download it too, and realize what i mean.
Thanks a lot for the patience.
PS: I am just a beginner, so, don't take me wrong. The fact is that i am
really confused about what books say about microkernel and what in that
single demo floppy. I would be really glad to have some here to kindly
clarify it to me.
--
If you're happy, you're successful.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
