> Jon M. Taylor writes:
> > On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > I recall a quote from Dave Miller a year or two ago, when there was a
> > > thread about monolithic vs. microkernels. He pointed out that we
> > > haven't even come to the limits of monolithic kernel design, so
> > > considering monolithic kernels like Linux as "obsolete" is highly
> > > premature.
> >
> > I do not think that blindly adhering to an obsolete design until
> > the last scrap of performance has been wrung from it when a clearly
> > superior alternative is available and free is a very wise use of
> > programmer resources.
>
> Rubbish! This is what evolution is all about! Species do not instantly
> become extinct when a better one (occupying their niche in the
> ecology) comes along.
Of course not.
> They become extinct when they are driven into
> the ground by superior competition or a changing environment.
Sure.
> They
> hang on until the bitter end.
This is where the analogy breaks down. OSes are not life forms.
They exists to serve our needs, cannot reporoduce without our help, and
the form of their genetic code, so to speak, is entirely within our
control. I see no reason whatsoever why a *free* OS should hang on to the
bitter end.
> Sometimes the "obsolete" species makes
> an evolutionary jump changes the world forever.
Then it is not the same species anymore. Just because FluxOS is
made up of Linux sausage does not make it Linux, even if you call it
Linux. By that token, I guess "Linux" will be around forever as long as
there is an OS that goes by the name of "Linux". But this is semantic
nonsense. When I say that Linux will be obsolteted by another OS within
two years, I mean more-or-less the current monolithic POSIX-compliant Unix
clone architecture of Linux 2.2 (and Linuxly also 2.3/2.4 as well).
> One of the great strengths of the Open Source movement is that it is
> driven by evolutionary development. To say that development of some
> project should be terminated because you think some other project is
> better misses the point.
I never said that anything should be terminated. Please do not
put words in my mouth.
> Besides which it's arrogant. Volunteers are
> free to work on what they like: you have no right to tell them what
> they should be working on.
I didn't do that! Why are you accusing me of this? All I ever
said was that I thought that this would happen as part of the natural
evolutionary course of free OS development.
> Why not forward your troll to the *BSD mailing lists after doing:
> s/Linux/BSD/g
> s/NGOS/Linux/g
>
> and see what a warm welcome you receive.
You need to maybe proof your replies once before shooting them
off, hm?
> > > Much later, with 2.2 on the doorstep, I pause and consider his
> > > words. 2.2 has brought us many performance improvements (networking,
> > > dcache, SMP).
> >
> > Few of which are specific to the Unix API, and most of which could
> > be pilfered for use in an NGOS easily. Exactly why is this relevant?
>
> Read what I said again. The point I was making is fairly obvious: the
> Linux kernel shows no sign of a slowdown in development. Your claim is
> that Linux is, or will very shortly be, obsolete.
Not *very* shortly. More misstatements.
> To be painfully
> explicit, I refute your claim by drawing attention to the continued
> development of Linux. Until people run out of ideas, it will not be
> obsolete.
People have not even run out of ideas for horse-and-buggy
contrivances. Are you saying they are not obsoleted by the automobile?
> Of course if 90% of Linux users switch to something else, then you
> also could consider it obsolete. But I doubt that will happen while
> new ideas keep coming.
The buggy vs. car analogy appies here too.
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Linux response to NGOS's is to
> make an evolutionary leap (assuming an NGOS performs as well as
> Linux).
Then it will obsolete itself. My point is not that _Linux_ will
dissapar as a name, but that the concept of a traditional monolithic Unix
kernel will. You gjust agreed with me, then. Thank you.
Jon
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/