if you know anything about Andrew Tanenbaum, you would know that he is an exception.
Re:Linus is probably biased about Mach though....
on
Torvalds Switches to a Mac
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From what i remember, Mr. Tanenbaum did not say that linux is dead but rather that monolithic kernels are dead on which the then linux kernel was based. that was not completely wrong, he also provided some references to support his arguments. what Mr. Torvalds maintained through out was that he was not designing an academic operating system but a practical one and hence efficiency and other considerations were more important to him for his OS. IMHO Tanenbaum was not wrong in saying that a kernel so badly designed wouldn't have been accepted by him if Torvalds were his student(though that should not in any way discredit the effort put into creating linux). finally it was summarised that(IIRC):
1)Tanenbaum is looking from aesthetics point of view, and is correct in what he said about OS theory, a living example is his own minix
2)Torvalds has practical concerns to look into when he was making linux, so adv of monolithic kernel looked more important at that time than microkernel architecture.
it cannot be said that (who)Torvalds finally won the battle as not every thing successful is necessarily well designed - microsoft windows and x86 architecture are good examples.
in addition i think linux is not completely monolithic anymore and has become a lot more modular to the Mr. Tanenbaum's liking.
Slashdot Mirror
if you know anything about Andrew Tanenbaum, you would know that he is an exception.
From what i remember, Mr. Tanenbaum did not say that linux is dead but rather that monolithic kernels are dead on which the then linux kernel was based. that was not completely wrong, he also provided some references to support his arguments. what Mr. Torvalds maintained through out was that he was not designing an academic operating system but a practical one and hence efficiency and other considerations were more important to him for his OS. IMHO Tanenbaum was not wrong in saying that a kernel so badly designed wouldn't have been accepted by him if Torvalds were his student(though that should not in any way discredit the effort put into creating linux). finally it was summarised that(IIRC): 1)Tanenbaum is looking from aesthetics point of view, and is correct in what he said about OS theory, a living example is his own minix 2)Torvalds has practical concerns to look into when he was making linux, so adv of monolithic kernel looked more important at that time than microkernel architecture. it cannot be said that (who)Torvalds finally won the battle as not every thing successful is necessarily well designed - microsoft windows and x86 architecture are good examples. in addition i think linux is not completely monolithic anymore and has become a lot more modular to the Mr. Tanenbaum's liking.