Re^2: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture

This is partly due to it being open source and partly due to its small footprint and stability. Code bases come and go, but the core architecture hasn't changed in literally decades.

I guess that depends how you define "core architecture". :) I'd say there are at least three competing core architectures for implementing Unix:

The infamous 1992 Linux is obsolete debate between old hand respected operating system researcher Andrew Tanenbaum and young upstart Linus Torvalds makes interesting reading. I guess it shows that "theoretical (academic) superiority" does not necessarily translate to success in the marketplace.

I think it's fair to say that monolithic kernels still dominate the Unix arena, though Tru64 UNIX is built on top of the Mach microkernel and Mac OS X is built on the XNU Mach/BSD-based hybrid kernel. Though I'd like to see the microkernel based GNU Hurd succeed, sadly that now looks doubtful after more than twenty years of development -- yet another example of the perils associated with "writing new systems from scratch".

Comment on Re^2: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part VI): Architecture by tilly (Archbishop) on Jan 26, 2011 at 05:05 UTC
It is worth noting that I personally know the original GNU architect, and he claims that he thought at the time that the easiest way forward was to build on top of BSD. But RMS chose Mach, in part because academia was very fond of microkernels at that point. He says that RMS has acknowledged that this decision was a mistake.	[reply]


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks