What Are They Smoking At De Toke Ville ?

[Seeking Twine]

Alex wrote:

I read this story earlier this morning, and I'm anxious to read whatever
book or info is published about this. Linux /is/ based on Minix, which
was written by Andy Tanenbaum. Did Linus write 100% of Linux? Probably
not, but Linux as it was as of 1991 is the creation of Linus.

One of the most famous moments in the history of Linux, is in fact, the
dispute between Tanenbaum, the inventor of Minix and Linus.

Linux looked up to Tanembaum and wrote to him by email explaining about
his Linux OS. Tanembaum quickly wrote back a scathing email saying that
Linux's monolithic kernel was an outdated architecture that was soon to
be superceded by microkernels such as Minix and Windows NT ( which went
out on a limb at the time with a pure microkernel ).

Well -- like platform shoes and hot pants, microkernels now look to be a
trendy thing that just didn't stick. Windos eventually backed off of
the microkernel idea for 2000 and so on. Although using a microkernel
at first and then undoing it is probably what led to so many
instabilities in their current dis-architecture.

To sum up, the idea that Linux came from Minux flies in the face of all
recorded fact and knowledge. Are you sure that foundation really isn't
the De Toke Ville foundation ?

[Richard Hutnik]

Seeking Twine <an*@twine.for.me> wrote in message news:<9b******************************@news.terane ws.com>...

Alex wrote:

I read this story earlier this morning, and I'm anxious to read whatever
book or info is published about this. Linux /is/ based on Minix, which
was written by Andy Tanenbaum. Did Linus write 100% of Linux? Probably
not, but Linux as it was as of 1991 is the creation of Linus.

One of the most famous moments in the history of Linux, is in fact, the
dispute between Tanenbaum, the inventor of Minix and Linus.

Linux looked up to Tanembaum and wrote to him by email explaining about
his Linux OS. Tanembaum quickly wrote back a scathing email saying that
Linux's monolithic kernel was an outdated architecture that was soon to
be superceded by microkernels such as Minix and Windows NT ( which went
out on a limb at the time with a pure microkernel ).

Well -- like platform shoes and hot pants, microkernels now look to be a
trendy thing that just didn't stick. Windos eventually backed off of
the microkernel idea for 2000 and so on. Although using a microkernel
at first and then undoing it is probably what led to so many
instabilities in their current dis-architecture.

To sum up, the idea that Linux came from Minux flies in the face of all
recorded fact and knowledge. Are you sure that foundation really isn't
the De Toke Ville foundation ?

They are smoking Microsoft bucks. Linus confessed he didn't create
Linux though. He is merely a front man for the real fathers.

- Richard Hutnik

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:02:20 GMT, Seeking Twine wrote:

Well -- like platform shoes and hot pants, microkernels now look to be a
trendy thing that just didn't stick. Windos eventually backed off of
the microkernel idea for 2000 and so on. Although using a microkernel
at first and then undoing it is probably what led to so many
instabilities in their current dis-architecture.

NT's kernel architecture has not changed one iota since the day it was
first released.

It was never a pure microkernel, but rather micro-kernel based. a pure
microkernel wouldn't have kernel mode drivers, among other things.

You are confusing two things really. For NT4, Microsoft moved the graphics
subsystem into ring 0. It still runs as a seperate process, and still uses
message passing to communicate with the kernel, it just doesn't have to do
a user-kernel transition to do so. The architecture is the same, it's just
removed some obstacles to improve performance.

[GreyCloud]

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:02:20 GMT, Seeking Twine wrote:

Well -- like platform shoes and hot pants, microkernels now look to be a
trendy thing that just didn't stick. Windos eventually backed off of
the microkernel idea for 2000 and so on. Although using a microkernel
at first and then undoing it is probably what led to so many
instabilities in their current dis-architecture.

NT's kernel architecture has not changed one iota since the day it was
first released.

It was never a pure microkernel, but rather micro-kernel based. a pure
microkernel wouldn't have kernel mode drivers, among other things.

You are confusing two things really. For NT4, Microsoft moved the graphics
subsystem into ring 0. It still runs as a seperate process, and still uses
message passing to communicate with the kernel, it just doesn't have to do
a user-kernel transition to do so. The architecture is the same, it's just
removed some obstacles to improve performance.

While sacrificing some stability with the grahpics subsystem. Something
that VMS never had a problem with.