Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.unix.internals > #51

Re: microkludgery (was Re: DEC-bashing)

Newsgroups comp.unix.internals
Date 2022-08-07 16:56 -0700
References <1992Mar31.153548.5837@esca.com> <VIXIE.92Apr5181805@cognition.pa.dec.com> <1992Apr6.021813.26170@decuac.dec.com> <id.X2QO.R31@ferranti.com>
Message-ID <c9eadddb-6b4a-4e95-a232-75508a1588aan@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: microkludgery (was Re: DEC-bashing)
From KP KP <jungletrain@outlook.com>

Show all headers | View raw


On Wednesday, April 8, 1992 at 10:46:15 AM UTC-7, Peter da Silva wrote:
> In article <1992Apr6.0...@decuac.dec.com> m...@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. "will do TCP/IP for food" Ranum) writes:
> > Does anyone really have any hard evidence that microkernels
> > are worth jack?
> Well, QNX gets pretty good performance. One thing they did was make sure their
> microkernel fit in the 8K on-chip cache on the 80486. Another common operating
> system with a microkernel design is AmigaOS. Neither of these systems have a
> 4MB "microkernel". Both run on commodity processors in under 512K, in fact.
> Don't extrapolate from some bad implementations of the idea to the conclusion
> that the idea doesn't work.
> -- 
> /F{/Times-Roman findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /M{moveto}def /S{show}def
> 8 F 24 24 M (Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; +1 713 274 5180)S 60 0 rmoveto(`-_-')S
> 12 F 24 32 M (Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation)S
> 0 -6 rmoveto 20 F ( Have you hugged your wolf today?)S showpage
Did it work??

Back to comp.unix.internals | Previous | Next | Find similar


Thread

Re: microkludgery (was Re: DEC-bashing) KP KP <jungletrain@outlook.com> - 2022-08-07 16:56 -0700

csiph-web