Why would people NOT want a monolithic kernel? Aside from the bullshit "it's old" crap, a monolithic kernel design actully has some speed over the abstracted microkernel design (Which, BTW, MkLinux uses -- it's a port of Linux to Mach)... And I doubt Apple's experience with the PowerPC is going to count for much. They are, after all, the folks responsable for MacOS 9. They had to buy out NeXT in order to get a modern OS.
As I recall from way back when IBM was porting OS/2 to a micro kernel design, the main advantages to uK are ease of porting and almost implicit SMP support -- all in exchange for a little speed. Well, I don't follow LinuxPPC that much, but I know they are running well under PPC and I believe the SMP support is there.
What possiable reason should anyone want to spend time bringing Darwin up to speed? Because it's there? The fact of the matter is that Apple is just trying to cash in on the Linux craze...They see a non-Microsoft OS gaining huge momentum and the fact that it's not MacOS is driving them out of their minds. Everybody is talking about "Open Source" and no one is talking about the Mac anymore... If they where really serious about Open Source (or Free Software for that matter) they would release all of MacOS, or at least ease up on the whole QuickTime codec issue. But they're not..In fact, their Apple "Public Source" License has a few built in measures that could kill an APSL project if Apple disaproves of it. If MacOS where to reach a stable position in the market, Apple's support for open source will disappear over night.
Sorry for the rant, but Apple and Sun's "open/community" source projects really piss me off. Just read the APSL -- it gives Apple quite a bit of power over any APSL project, such as the ability to shut one down just by FILING a suit.
Isn't Janet Reno the one who refuses to use a computer because they confuse her? I seem to remeber a story where she had a Windows-based computer removed because she 'had trouble finding her files after she had saved them'...
If she is such a clueless idiot, what authority does she have telling us what "terrorists" will do with encryption (err, should they ever find www.pgpi.com..OPPS!)? Heck, why is she even still around? This reminds me of Jocylen Elders (former Sergen General) saying we needed to make "safer guns, and safer bullets". Or her "Innercourse 101" class (Innercourse == Masterbation)...or starting sex ed in Kindergarden.. hehe... "OK boys and girls, today we going to learn about Ms. S. Ms. S unfortuntly is slut and gave Mr. M HIV." hehe
Anyway, it's all good for a laugh if nothing else -- encryption is avalaible to everyone regardless of Reno.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would people NOT want a monolithic kernel? Aside from the bullshit "it's old" crap, a monolithic kernel design actully has some speed over the abstracted microkernel design (Which, BTW, MkLinux uses -- it's a port of Linux to Mach)... And I doubt Apple's experience with the PowerPC is going to count for much. They are, after all, the folks responsable for MacOS 9. They had to buy out NeXT in order to get a modern OS.
As I recall from way back when IBM was porting OS/2 to a micro kernel design, the main advantages to uK are ease of porting and almost implicit SMP support -- all in exchange for a little speed. Well, I don't follow LinuxPPC that much, but I know they are running well under PPC and I believe the SMP support is there.
What possiable reason should anyone want to spend time bringing Darwin up to speed? Because it's there? The fact of the matter is that Apple is just trying to cash in on the Linux craze...They see a non-Microsoft OS gaining huge momentum and the fact that it's not MacOS is driving them out of their minds. Everybody is talking about "Open Source" and no one is talking about the Mac anymore... If they where really serious about Open Source (or Free Software for that matter) they would release all of MacOS, or at least ease up on the whole QuickTime codec issue. But they're not..In fact, their Apple "Public Source" License has a few built in measures that could kill an APSL project if Apple disaproves of it. If MacOS where to reach a stable position in the market, Apple's support for open source will disappear over night.
Sorry for the rant, but Apple and Sun's "open/community" source projects really piss me off. Just read the APSL -- it gives Apple quite a bit of power over any APSL project, such as the ability to shut one down just by FILING a suit.
I vaugley remember a Slashdot article saying that robots are going to take over the Earth, so we'll let those bastards deal with it.
Isn't Janet Reno the one who refuses to use a computer because they confuse her? I seem to remeber a story where she had a Windows-based computer removed because she 'had trouble finding her files after she had saved them'...
If she is such a clueless idiot, what authority does she have telling us what "terrorists" will do with encryption (err, should they ever find www.pgpi.com..OPPS!)? Heck, why is she even still around? This reminds me of Jocylen Elders (former Sergen General) saying we needed to make "safer guns, and safer bullets". Or her "Innercourse 101" class (Innercourse == Masterbation)...or starting sex ed in Kindergarden.. hehe... "OK boys and girls, today we going to learn about Ms. S. Ms. S unfortuntly is slut and gave Mr. M HIV." hehe
Anyway, it's all good for a laugh if nothing else -- encryption is avalaible to everyone regardless
of Reno.