Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.misc    |    General topics about computers not cover    |    21,759 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 21,678 of 21,759    |
|    Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOlivei to Scott Dorsey    |
|    Re: Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat    |
|    26 Dec 25 21:07:02    |
      From: ldo@nz.invalid              On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 09:05:04 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:              > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 22:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:       >>       >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:44:02 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:       >>       >>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:02:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:       >>>>       >>>> What exactly does Plan9 get you?       >>>       >>> The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the       >>> kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the       >>> less stuff there is which can cause catastrophic failure when       >>> things go wrong.       >>       >> Ah, the hoary old microkernel refrain. You'd think, after something       >> like four decades of repeating the same tired old claims without       >> being able to back them up, the microkernel fans would have given       >> up by now.       >       > How so? The microkernel does exactly what it's claimed to do ...              You claimed it yourself, that it is somehow supposed to offer greater       reliability. Only it never does. All it does is sap performance, at       the very lowest level of the software stack where it matters most.              > ... and it's a very commonly used architecture.              Many keep trying to use it, but many don’t succeed.              E.g. GNU Hurd. That has been in development for about as long as Linux       has. There are grown adults walking the Earth, who were not alive when       the project started. It still hasn’t been able to get close to       production quality.              So much for microkernels making it less likely for things going wrong,       eh?              > There's still a microkernel at the bottom of OSX ...              I think the BSD kernel started out as something vaguely       microkernel-based, but that got severely compromised over time, for       the sake of performance if nothing else.              Which again, proves my point.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca