The Unix (so also the Linux) kernel concept is much nicer than the one of a microkernel. There are only five basic operations (read, write, open, close, ulink) everything is based on and a clearly defined filesystem.
klausi
The Unix (so also the Linux) kernel concept is much nicer than the one of a microkernel. There are only five basic operations (read, write, open, close, ulink) everything is based on and a clearly defined filesystem.
klausi
When I close my eyes nobody can see me...
Why do you always get so excited over this. Please keep your penis in your pants. I don't have my password written on my forehead.Dean, why do you insist on logging out to do your trolling? It was obvious who that was even before I checked the IP.
In case you thought that'd fly dean, you might want to look back and see how you referred to yourself in the 3rd person...I doubt it was as simple as you forgetting your password. You're such a dork.
>Well NT/2000/XP doesn't because it's a microkernel.
Apparently this is not true. Inside Microsoft Windows 2000, Third Edition, by David Solomon -
andAlthough some claim it as such, Windows 2000 isn't a microkernel-based operating system in the classic definition of microkernels, where the principal operating system components (such as the memory manager, process manager, and I/O manager) run as separate processes in their own private address spaces, layered on a primitive set of services the microkernel provides.
If it was a true microkernel it'd be more stableWindows 2000 is similar to most UNIX systems in that it's a monolithic operating system in the sense that the bulk of the operating system and device driver code shares the same kernel-mode protected memory space..
If i get you guys right, a in a system that uses microKernel, many processes are run outside the kernel, but i a system that doesn't use microkernel, many processes are done in the kernel.
