A Comparison of Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD Kernel

v1x writes "An article at OpenSolaris examines three of the basic subsystems of the kernel and compares implementation between Solaris 10, Linux 2.6, and FreeBSD 5.3. From the article: 'Solaris, FreeBSD, and Linux are obviously benefiting from each other. With Solaris going open source, I expect this to continue at a faster rate. My impression is that change is most rapid in Linux. The benefits of this are that new technology has a quick incorporation into the system.'"

Comments

Re:Filesystems

[CyricZ]

It would appear they have not, or if support is available they do not include it with the core FreeBSD code.

It's not in the kernel modules portion of the FreeBSD CVS repository:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lkm/

Nor is such code with the other filesystem code:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/fs/

Re:WARNING! Invalid article copy!

[larry bagina]

As most of us know, goatseFS is NOT a filesystem.

Yeah, it's more of a life style choice.

SOLARIS 10 IS A MICROKERNEL OS

[mclaincausey]

I put the title in all caps because I am responding to dozens of people claiming Solaris is monolithic. It is not. The Solaris microkernel is a stripped-down SVr4 kernel. Drivers are loaded from it and run in the same context for performance reasons, everything else outside of scheduling, interrupts, and a few other services runs strictly in user space and is dynamically loadable. I've heard the model referred to as an "object-oriented" architecture, since modules can call functions in other modules, though Mach, the famous microkernel, is also pretty thoroughly object-oriented, as is Windows XP's kernel, so this is somewhat confusing when used as a term to differentiate the architecture from a microkernel.