Really? My experience is the opposite. Almost every windows user I know actually thinks that computers slow down overtime. If you have experienced this slowing then you HAVE encountered the effects of viruses and spyware.
""Premium Ready" means ready for the optional Aero user interface, which is a compositing UI that includes (optional) features such as 3D, translucency, UI animations, live thumbnails, and Flip 3D."
Yup, and NOTHING else. Remember we have come to expect that we can actually run applications in addition to whatever level of eyecandy we choose.
"99% of the additional resources consumed by vista as opposed to windows xp will be used for eye candy and related bullshit, none of which will be in use while you are playing a game."
You need to rephrase that a bit. Those things will not be UTILIZED while running a game. The OS is not going to magically unload the services required to support those spiffy graphics and all the preloaded crap to make the transitions happen faster, etc, etc because you would like to play a game. Besides that, games aren't the only thing I want to run quickly. My computer pretty much does just about everything I WANT it to do now. Now I just want all those functions to happen more quickly as hardware improves and the bugs in the software to be fixed.
A delay when I click on an application on the taskbar simply so that the window can open with a transition instead of appearing instantly is a bad thing and that kind of 'eye candy' requires more resources and reduces the quality of a user's experience. Overhead so that the system can be ready to present eye candy like that if I should turn it on are also bad.
"That's pretty much what I said in my post. Windows is more than just an OS so calling it a bloated OS doesn't accomplish anything. Strip it all down to its bare essentials and I honestly don't know how bloated Windows is. As I said, I don't think its near as bad as people are making it out to be."
"Windows is designed to serve the largest number of people possible. Linux is capable of doing the same but you won't find one distro that can service as many people. Pack in all the features of Windows and Linux gets pretty crowded too."
Isn't this a little backwards? Windows doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities of your typical linux distro. Getting the same capabilities found in every linux distribution would requires thousands of dollars worth of additional software.
The difference isn't the capabilities of the system (linux is both more efficient AND more capable) the difference is in the capability to trim the system down like you mentioned in the first statement I quoted. All the crap in windows is grouped together as the OS because you can't get rid of it. Even if you can get rid of it, you can't get rid of it with the OS installer. This is so much the case that we have windows to blame for the operating system being redifined to include applications and utilities instead of the software layer that directly handles the hardware.
"or Vista's graphics are *extremely* inefficient (doesn't seem likely)"
Good point, it doesn't seem very likely a company with a justified reputation for producing the least efficient example of every application they make would write an operating system that handles tasks inefficiently.
Brilliant, load shitloads of memory into a system that uses vm and swaps regardless of how much memory you have and just does it in larger chunks when you give it more ram!
Overkilling ram on a windows box actually bogs the system down. What do you think you have, a linux system that doesn't swap until its needed?
Hell I don't bother with anything slower than a t-bird unless it is going to be a small network server. Then a P2 400 or P3 will work just fine. For a desktop I recommend at least 256mb for windows and 512mb for linux since you still see significant performance decrease if you drop below that; memory is cheap and plentiful. I've got gigs of unused memory laying around.
I know linux is capable of running with less ram than windows, but linux utilizes the ram better if you give it to it avoiding swapping if possible. Windows just swaps MORE when it has more ram.
Minimum is supposed to mean the absolute minimum requirements. That is why the good lord invented 'recommended'. There are times when building extremely minimal dedicated purpose machines that you need to know the real minimums.
Nobody has trouble getting this concept in modern times. The problem with the DOS and win9x days was that system admins were expected to memorize the listed minimum specs for all the standard certs instead of recommended specs.
Tell the tech the REAL minimum, when the boss asks the minimum tell him the recommended specs. Then things run smoothly.
That isn't very realistic for XP. Not unless you want to hear the HD constantly churning. Getting XP to run comfortably with less than 128mb ram requires turning off services that can't be safely removed on a general purpose system.
Lets see, the fastest processor ever put in a laptop. HD running at the fastest RPM speed you commonly see in a laptop. Shitload of ram. Yup, that's typical alright. What does it take to make above standard for you? A 20lb gaming rig from alienware?
XP runs as fast as 98 if you give it enough system as well. After all, if you have enough processor to handle all those services and enough ram to preload all the crap it wants to put in memory so that transitions will happen faster and such it better be faster.
A typical laptop is 256mb-512mb ram, 60-80gb 4200 rpm or MAYBE 5400rpm drive, and a 1.6ghz pentium mobile (at the high end, most are running semprons or celerons).
Now now, lets be honest here. Captive-ntfs is slow as shit.
For my purposes it simply won't work at all. I need a shared partition for data. That way I can work with the data with tools from either OS. And I need to write gigs at a time. For instance I do many dvd backup rips. Have you ever wrote 4gigs to an NTFS partition using Captive? Your 15 minutes to rip from the DVD just skyrocketed to longer than the entire rip used to take.
His argument is not based on the source of the files or whether he is sharing those files. In fact, where the files came from and where they are going is completely irrelvent in the statement he made. Please read again.
You and 10,000 people can download a song from my share directory. I have not lost my song, the RIAA/Studios/Artists have not lost a single penny and have actually gained free advertising, and 10,001 people have gained a copy of the song. If you add that up it is good for everyone, not bad and nobody lost a copy.
Artificial restrictions to prevent distribution of intellectual property are a dated concept and need to be reconsidered. The reconsideration CAN and SHOULD put numerous parties and even industries out of business.
The reason we don't embrace this fact in the United States is that we have stopped all of our real physical product production and instead product primarily intellectual property that is only valuable if we get everyone to agree to made up restrictions that limit its distribution.
With a proper free license like the GPL this is a non-issue. Any changes Microsoft made would have to be distributed with the binary. First Microsoft wouldn't touch the GPL with a ten foot pole (in no small part because of their smear campaigns that said they love open source and hate the GPL because it's terms don't allow them to steal the source), second the only way microsoft could take the ability to run the show away from Sun would be gain greater acceptance of their fork.
That is valid forking in action. Forking is a good healthy open process. Preventing forking is a bad thing for everyone. It means that if Sun mismanages Java then there is would be no way for someone else to step up to the plate. With successful forking in place then the software progresses via evolution with the most fit fork surviving. If Sun Java dies in a fork friendly environment it is because they had less fit genes.
You seem confused. Successful forking is essential to proper free software but it is not what sun is aiming for. Sun wants to remain at the helm of Java, they don't want another fork, even if that fork is successful and forked for the right reasons. Sun would not be happy with a java.org fork that everyone and their dog adopted and left Sun to be just another contributor instead of running the show.
Me, I want a true open product that can be forked if Sun mismanages it.
"They may not apropriate money for armies for a term longer than two years. No congress can set up an army with funding that can't be cut off by the next congress."
Clearly we can see you have read the relevent sections of the constitution. LOL Constitutionally the newly elected congress is NOT a 'new' congress. Congress is congress is congress. Electing new officials is NOT a reset switch for ANY consitutional limitations that aren't related to choosing new congressmen.
"Saying you can't keep an army for more than 2 years would have been stupid even back when; what if a war went longer than that?"
The limitation only applies in time of peace. In a time of war congress gathers together the state militias to form a federal army and keeps that army until the war is over. Again, the whole point is that the federal government is not supposed to have the bulk of the military power in the nation. The states are supposed to have the domestic military power. If the federal government has a standing army then they could use it domestically to oppose the wills of the states.
Remember, when the constitution was framed there were no U.S. Citizens, there were state citizens. There was no federal army (which kind of proves the point I am making, the guys who wrote the constitution interpreted it the same way I am). It was after the civil war that the federal government turned state citizens into U.S. citizens by imposing the 16th amendment (I bet you thought it was about making slaves equal) despite the fact that it was never legally ratifiied. At this point they then formed a federal army that is independent of state militias. Basically, the federal government has since sought to take upon itself greater central authority and to lessen the sovernty of the individual states. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
Yup, most of the military power of the federal government is unconstitutional. The federal government isn't supposed to keep a standing army for a period greater than two years. They didn't like that, so they started making that the enlistment term instead. When people stopped thinking about it and assumed a federal army is supposed to be there, they extended the term of service beyond 2 years as well.
Read your constitution, technically the gov is only supposed to control a Navy. If you pay really close attention you will see that the Navy has ground forces (the marines) and its own airforce. You know, just in case they get called out about having other branches, they can just expand the existing sub-branches within the navy.
The federal government is supposed to keep the Navy, the state militias are supposed to form together to be the federal army when needed. It's another balance of powers that was supposed to keep the states strong and independent of the federal government. The air force is another matter, the constitution doesn't empower the federal government or the states to maintain an airforce.
There are only two major political parties and your sig says that we should murder republicans. That alone is a pretty strong statement of support for the democrats.
What makes you think things magically stopped in the 70's? The NSA was accused of illegal wiretaps during the Clinton administration. I only remember because there was a 3am news story about how they didn't bother to show up for the congressional oversight committee and refused to give the oversight committee any requested documents. I never heard another word about the incident.
I've always found it amusing that you hear shocking political stories on respected news networks in the wee hours of the morning and they are never mentioned again.
The conspiracy he mentioned is pretty consistant with previous conspiracies throughout history that have actually occured.
The conspiracies you mention don't relate to anything that ever happened and aren't even logical.
He is arguing that the most corrupt individual in the nation (this man is the most successful of all career politicians after all) would be willing to do something immoral for a clear gain. A gain that can be shown to have occured... You are comparing it to things known to violate the laws of physics. Am I the only one who sees a wee bit of difference here?
Surely nobody with an IQ greater than 20 could actually believe the old 50's style propoganda about the government being 'not perfect but the best we can do' and that politicians are generally good and honest people who want to improve america. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Next you'll tell me that Bush personally goes and drops rose petals on the graves of the poor poor innocents that were accidently killed in the pursuit of peace 3
"Here's what's so ironic about the whole issue. The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters."
My god what a sucker. The US is obviously not free of terror and never has been. But there haven't been any major acts of terror since 9/11. Oh wait, the previous administrations who didn't push us into a police state succeeded in accomplishing that much between the revolutionary war and Bush taking office. Imagine that!
For god sake, do you realize that 'there haven't been any acts of terror' line is actually a joke line from the daily show?
Behavior that is perfectly acceptable on a level playing field (or allowed, some of it may be immoral but that is another issue) is one thing. The behavior of a monopoly is another matter entirely.
Unless you literally translate 'being a monopoly' as being identical to 'being successful' then there is clearly a difference here. A monopoly can not be leveraged to gain more monopolies or to push out competition in another area. What everybody else is doing doesn't even come into the picture.
There is no shortage of evidence that Microsoft viewed the netscape platform as a threat to their control via the windows desktop. IE and Netscape raged in a war that continued for years until Microsoft finally put the product directly into their operating system. This was a direct move to leverage their monopoly to gain a browser monopoly.
RedHat may include a browser, but redhat does not have a desktop monopoly. Redhat including a browser does not guarantee that browser will dominate the market and become a monopoly.
By including an application in windows where users are sure to interact with it microsoft essentially fills out the windows blank check with whatever new market they want a monopoly in. That is what is illegal. It is illegal because we have an economic system that depends on everyone competing and nobody actually winning. If somebody wins the system breaks and stays broken. It is a known flaw in capitalism and there nothing wrong with patching the flaw with laws that prevent the damage from spreading.
"I'm afraid the false assumption has fallen upon you here. It's proven, time and again, that microkernels make it simpler to guarantee security and reliability."
It is not proven at all and the top kernel programmers in the world agree. If they didn't, this discussion wouldn't be occuring. If you mean that the code is simpler to audit because there is less of it you are mistaken. A microkernel architecture only involves less code in the kernel, if you consider all the code needed to provide the functionality of the macrokernel it is replacing then a microkernel involves MORE code and greater complexity. Therefore it is MORE DIFFICULT to audit.
"By discarding microkernel architecture, you also discard the architectural segregation of system services"
Of course you want to segregate services logically for maintainance. That is already done with macrokernels. There is no reason to run those services in a seperate memory space just to get a logical seperation. A logical seperation is all that is needed for distributing maintainence.
"A HUGE misstep that the monolithic kernel camp has made by pointing fingers at microkernels' performance is this: smart coders write good, clean, testable, reliable, secure programs first, and optimize later."
False. You pick a overall design that satisfies that your primary design concerns first. The rest of your statement is true about IMPLEMENTING that design. Not designing a memory manager for performance in the first place is a preposterous concept, you pick the fastest performing design, implement that design in a stable and reliable manner and then go back to optimize individual parts of code. You do not pick a slow as shit but ultra reliable design, implement in the most reliable way possible, and then go back and try to optimize the poor design.
"Most often, these architectural decisions result in such a negligible performance increase that it pales in comparison to the maintenance nightmare that ensues from it."
We are talking about the kernel, not a text editor. Performance is critical and there is no such thing as a negligible performance gain. Although I would hardly call either macro or micro kernels unsound designs.
"There's nothing magical about microkernels that prevents them from being optimized, just like any other program. The benefits of the microkernel architecture certainly outweigh the performance hit in my book."
The benefits of a microkernel architecture remain theoretical. The performance hit is not. Andy himself has previously estimated a 'negligable' overall performance loss of about 30% using an optimized microkernel versus an optimized macrokernel. I am hardly prepared to trade 30% performance for theoretically increased reliability and stability. Especially when the practical macrokernel implementations don't have stability or reliability problems. You can't get more reliable than 'never goes down' (except for maintanaince and hardware failures of course) and my linux DESKTOPS meet that standard already; let alone servers and mission critical systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? My experience is the opposite. Almost every windows user I know actually thinks that computers slow down overtime. If you have experienced this slowing then you HAVE encountered the effects of viruses and spyware.
""Premium Ready" means ready for the optional Aero user interface, which is a compositing UI that includes (optional) features such as 3D, translucency, UI animations, live thumbnails, and Flip 3D."
Yup, and NOTHING else. Remember we have come to expect that we can actually run applications in addition to whatever level of eyecandy we choose.
"99% of the additional resources consumed by vista as opposed to windows xp will be used for eye candy and related bullshit, none of which will be in use while you are playing a game."
You need to rephrase that a bit. Those things will not be UTILIZED while running a game. The OS is not going to magically unload the services required to support those spiffy graphics and all the preloaded crap to make the transitions happen faster, etc, etc because you would like to play a game. Besides that, games aren't the only thing I want to run quickly. My computer pretty much does just about everything I WANT it to do now. Now I just want all those functions to happen more quickly as hardware improves and the bugs in the software to be fixed.
A delay when I click on an application on the taskbar simply so that the window can open with a transition instead of appearing instantly is a bad thing and that kind of 'eye candy' requires more resources and reduces the quality of a user's experience. Overhead so that the system can be ready to present eye candy like that if I should turn it on are also bad.
"That's pretty much what I said in my post. Windows is more than just an OS so calling it a bloated OS doesn't accomplish anything. Strip it all down to its bare essentials and I honestly don't know how bloated Windows is. As I said, I don't think its near as bad as people are making it out to be."
"Windows is designed to serve the largest number of people possible. Linux is capable of doing the same but you won't find one distro that can service as many people. Pack in all the features of Windows and Linux gets pretty crowded too."
Isn't this a little backwards? Windows doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities of your typical linux distro. Getting the same capabilities found in every linux distribution would requires thousands of dollars worth of additional software.
The difference isn't the capabilities of the system (linux is both more efficient AND more capable) the difference is in the capability to trim the system down like you mentioned in the first statement I quoted. All the crap in windows is grouped together as the OS because you can't get rid of it. Even if you can get rid of it, you can't get rid of it with the OS installer. This is so much the case that we have windows to blame for the operating system being redifined to include applications and utilities instead of the software layer that directly handles the hardware.
"or Vista's graphics are *extremely* inefficient (doesn't seem likely)"
Good point, it doesn't seem very likely a company with a justified reputation for producing the least efficient example of every application they make would write an operating system that handles tasks inefficiently.
Brilliant, load shitloads of memory into a system that uses vm and swaps regardless of how much memory you have and just does it in larger chunks when you give it more ram!
Overkilling ram on a windows box actually bogs the system down. What do you think you have, a linux system that doesn't swap until its needed?
Hell I don't bother with anything slower than a t-bird unless it is going to be a small network server. Then a P2 400 or P3 will work just fine. For a desktop I recommend at least 256mb for windows and 512mb for linux since you still see significant performance decrease if you drop below that; memory is cheap and plentiful. I've got gigs of unused memory laying around.
I know linux is capable of running with less ram than windows, but linux utilizes the ram better if you give it to it avoiding swapping if possible. Windows just swaps MORE when it has more ram.
Minimum is supposed to mean the absolute minimum requirements. That is why the good lord invented 'recommended'. There are times when building extremely minimal dedicated purpose machines that you need to know the real minimums.
Nobody has trouble getting this concept in modern times. The problem with the DOS and win9x days was that system admins were expected to memorize the listed minimum specs for all the standard certs instead of recommended specs.
Tell the tech the REAL minimum, when the boss asks the minimum tell him the recommended specs. Then things run smoothly.
That isn't very realistic for XP. Not unless you want to hear the HD constantly churning. Getting XP to run comfortably with less than 128mb ram requires turning off services that can't be safely removed on a general purpose system.
Lets see, the fastest processor ever put in a laptop. HD running at the fastest RPM speed you commonly see in a laptop. Shitload of ram. Yup, that's typical alright. What does it take to make above standard for you? A 20lb gaming rig from alienware?
XP runs as fast as 98 if you give it enough system as well. After all, if you have enough processor to handle all those services and enough ram to preload all the crap it wants to put in memory so that transitions will happen faster and such it better be faster.
A typical laptop is 256mb-512mb ram, 60-80gb 4200 rpm or MAYBE 5400rpm drive, and a 1.6ghz pentium mobile (at the high end, most are running semprons or celerons).
Now now, lets be honest here. Captive-ntfs is slow as shit.
For my purposes it simply won't work at all. I need a shared partition for data. That way I can work with the data with tools from either OS. And I need to write gigs at a time. For instance I do many dvd backup rips. Have you ever wrote 4gigs to an NTFS partition using Captive? Your 15 minutes to rip from the DVD just skyrocketed to longer than the entire rip used to take.
His argument is not based on the source of the files or whether he is sharing those files. In fact, where the files came from and where they are going is completely irrelvent in the statement he made. Please read again.
You and 10,000 people can download a song from my share directory. I have not lost my song, the RIAA/Studios/Artists have not lost a single penny and have actually gained free advertising, and 10,001 people have gained a copy of the song. If you add that up it is good for everyone, not bad and nobody lost a copy.
Artificial restrictions to prevent distribution of intellectual property are a dated concept and need to be reconsidered. The reconsideration CAN and SHOULD put numerous parties and even industries out of business.
The reason we don't embrace this fact in the United States is that we have stopped all of our real physical product production and instead product primarily intellectual property that is only valuable if we get everyone to agree to made up restrictions that limit its distribution.
With a proper free license like the GPL this is a non-issue. Any changes Microsoft made would have to be distributed with the binary. First Microsoft wouldn't touch the GPL with a ten foot pole (in no small part because of their smear campaigns that said they love open source and hate the GPL because it's terms don't allow them to steal the source), second the only way microsoft could take the ability to run the show away from Sun would be gain greater acceptance of their fork.
That is valid forking in action. Forking is a good healthy open process. Preventing forking is a bad thing for everyone. It means that if Sun mismanages Java then there is would be no way for someone else to step up to the plate. With successful forking in place then the software progresses via evolution with the most fit fork surviving. If Sun Java dies in a fork friendly environment it is because they had less fit genes.
You seem confused. Successful forking is essential to proper free software but it is not what sun is aiming for. Sun wants to remain at the helm of Java, they don't want another fork, even if that fork is successful and forked for the right reasons. Sun would not be happy with a java.org fork that everyone and their dog adopted and left Sun to be just another contributor instead of running the show.
Me, I want a true open product that can be forked if Sun mismanages it.
"They may not apropriate money for armies for a term longer than two years. No congress can set up an army with funding that can't be cut off by the next congress."
Clearly we can see you have read the relevent sections of the constitution. LOL Constitutionally the newly elected congress is NOT a 'new' congress. Congress is congress is congress. Electing new officials is NOT a reset switch for ANY consitutional limitations that aren't related to choosing new congressmen.
"Saying you can't keep an army for more than 2 years would have been stupid even back when; what if a war went longer than that?"
The limitation only applies in time of peace. In a time of war congress gathers together the state militias to form a federal army and keeps that army until the war is over. Again, the whole point is that the federal government is not supposed to have the bulk of the military power in the nation. The states are supposed to have the domestic military power. If the federal government has a standing army then they could use it domestically to oppose the wills of the states.
Remember, when the constitution was framed there were no U.S. Citizens, there were state citizens. There was no federal army (which kind of proves the point I am making, the guys who wrote the constitution interpreted it the same way I am). It was after the civil war that the federal government turned state citizens into U.S. citizens by imposing the 16th amendment (I bet you thought it was about making slaves equal) despite the fact that it was never legally ratifiied. At this point they then formed a federal army that is independent of state militias. Basically, the federal government has since sought to take upon itself greater central authority and to lessen the sovernty of the individual states. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
Yup, most of the military power of the federal government is unconstitutional. The federal government isn't supposed to keep a standing army for a period greater than two years. They didn't like that, so they started making that the enlistment term instead. When people stopped thinking about it and assumed a federal army is supposed to be there, they extended the term of service beyond 2 years as well.
Read your constitution, technically the gov is only supposed to control a Navy. If you pay really close attention you will see that the Navy has ground forces (the marines) and its own airforce. You know, just in case they get called out about having other branches, they can just expand the existing sub-branches within the navy.
The federal government is supposed to keep the Navy, the state militias are supposed to form together to be the federal army when needed. It's another balance of powers that was supposed to keep the states strong and independent of the federal government. The air force is another matter, the constitution doesn't empower the federal government or the states to maintain an airforce.
The current executive branch just filled the court with its pawns. Not being able to get rid of them is hardly a good thing at this point.
There are only two major political parties and your sig says that we should murder republicans. That alone is a pretty strong statement of support for the democrats.
What makes you think things magically stopped in the 70's? The NSA was accused of illegal wiretaps during the Clinton administration. I only remember because there was a 3am news story about how they didn't bother to show up for the congressional oversight committee and refused to give the oversight committee any requested documents. I never heard another word about the incident.
I've always found it amusing that you hear shocking political stories on respected news networks in the wee hours of the morning and they are never mentioned again.
You are thinking of the CIA. The NSA is NOT supposed to be spying overseas.
The conspiracy he mentioned is pretty consistant with previous conspiracies throughout history that have actually occured.
The conspiracies you mention don't relate to anything that ever happened and aren't even logical.
He is arguing that the most corrupt individual in the nation (this man is the most successful of all career politicians after all) would be willing to do something immoral for a clear gain. A gain that can be shown to have occured... You are comparing it to things known to violate the laws of physics. Am I the only one who sees a wee bit of difference here?
Surely nobody with an IQ greater than 20 could actually believe the old 50's style propoganda about the government being 'not perfect but the best we can do' and that politicians are generally good and honest people who want to improve america. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Next you'll tell me that Bush personally goes and drops rose petals on the graves of the poor poor innocents that were accidently killed in the pursuit of peace 3
"Here's what's so ironic about the whole issue. The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters."
My god what a sucker. The US is obviously not free of terror and never has been. But there haven't been any major acts of terror since 9/11. Oh wait, the previous administrations who didn't push us into a police state succeeded in accomplishing that much between the revolutionary war and Bush taking office. Imagine that!
For god sake, do you realize that 'there haven't been any acts of terror' line is actually a joke line from the daily show?
And like fingerprints the government has no damn business having them. Privacy and free speech should trump catching bad guys everytime.
Behavior that is perfectly acceptable on a level playing field (or allowed, some of it may be immoral but that is another issue) is one thing. The behavior of a monopoly is another matter entirely.
Unless you literally translate 'being a monopoly' as being identical to 'being successful' then there is clearly a difference here. A monopoly can not be leveraged to gain more monopolies or to push out competition in another area. What everybody else is doing doesn't even come into the picture.
There is no shortage of evidence that Microsoft viewed the netscape platform as a threat to their control via the windows desktop. IE and Netscape raged in a war that continued for years until Microsoft finally put the product directly into their operating system. This was a direct move to leverage their monopoly to gain a browser monopoly.
RedHat may include a browser, but redhat does not have a desktop monopoly. Redhat including a browser does not guarantee that browser will dominate the market and become a monopoly.
By including an application in windows where users are sure to interact with it microsoft essentially fills out the windows blank check with whatever new market they want a monopoly in. That is what is illegal. It is illegal because we have an economic system that depends on everyone competing and nobody actually winning. If somebody wins the system breaks and stays broken. It is a known flaw in capitalism and there nothing wrong with patching the flaw with laws that prevent the damage from spreading.
"I'm afraid the false assumption has fallen upon you here. It's proven, time and again, that microkernels make it simpler to guarantee security and reliability."
It is not proven at all and the top kernel programmers in the world agree. If they didn't, this discussion wouldn't be occuring. If you mean that the code is simpler to audit because there is less of it you are mistaken. A microkernel architecture only involves less code in the kernel, if you consider all the code needed to provide the functionality of the macrokernel it is replacing then a microkernel involves MORE code and greater complexity. Therefore it is MORE DIFFICULT to audit.
"By discarding microkernel architecture, you also discard the architectural segregation of system services"
Of course you want to segregate services logically for maintainance. That is already done with macrokernels. There is no reason to run those services in a seperate memory space just to get a logical seperation. A logical seperation is all that is needed for distributing maintainence.
"A HUGE misstep that the monolithic kernel camp has made by pointing fingers at microkernels' performance is this: smart coders write good, clean, testable, reliable, secure programs first, and optimize later."
False. You pick a overall design that satisfies that your primary design concerns first. The rest of your statement is true about IMPLEMENTING that design. Not designing a memory manager for performance in the first place is a preposterous concept, you pick the fastest performing design, implement that design in a stable and reliable manner and then go back to optimize individual parts of code. You do not pick a slow as shit but ultra reliable design, implement in the most reliable way possible, and then go back and try to optimize the poor design.
"Most often, these architectural decisions result in such a negligible performance increase that it pales in comparison to the maintenance nightmare that ensues from it."
We are talking about the kernel, not a text editor. Performance is critical and there is no such thing as a negligible performance gain. Although I would hardly call either macro or micro kernels unsound designs.
"There's nothing magical about microkernels that prevents them from being optimized, just like any other program. The benefits of the microkernel architecture certainly outweigh the performance hit in my book."
The benefits of a microkernel architecture remain theoretical. The performance hit is not. Andy himself has previously estimated a 'negligable' overall performance loss of about 30% using an optimized microkernel versus an optimized macrokernel. I am hardly prepared to trade 30% performance for theoretically increased reliability and stability. Especially when the practical macrokernel implementations don't have stability or reliability problems. You can't get more reliable than 'never goes down' (except for maintanaince and hardware failures of course) and my linux DESKTOPS meet that standard already; let alone servers and mission critical systems.