Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Help' started by Max Power, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. Max Power

    Max Power Guest

    Based on:
    Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/utter-crap-torvalds-pans-apple/2008/02/05/1202090393959.html

    Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternatives"...

    I assume they both do it
    ===================
    CARDINAL SIN:
    Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the kernel
    privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a general rule,
    the FS and Drivers and networking should run at 'privileged user' level and
    not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The troika of FS, Drivers and
    networking should not be (a substantial) part of kernel. Keep the kernel
    under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but 20,000 lines or less is
    preferred.
    ===================

    FILE SYSTEM SUPPORT:
    Linux has almost universal file system support, it runs and boots on about
    anything -- not so much so for OS X
    OS X uses a special FS version for backward compatibility with older Mac
    Apps; Linux can't read this FS!
    Linux should be able to read the slightly variant QNX RTOS FS, but I don't
    think it can do this either.

    TASK SWITCHING:
    Linux uses more lightweight processes than OS X -- but most hardened server
    users can't tell the difference

    X11R7:
    Linux 100%, OS X: there but obscure. Mac Apps cannot be run remotely by X11
    as far as I can tell

    UPGRADING:
    Hard manual labour with some Linux configs, ASUS Eee PC and other versions:
    almost fixed.
    Apple: OS X probably still has the best overall upgrade system.
    Global view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.

    POWER MANAGMENT:
    OS X has a very PC like implementation, but I assume power management is not
    in the kernel.
    Linux seems to have had power management added to the kernel space -- bad
    idea.
    It is OK to run power management at system level privilege, but the kernel
    should itself only be slightly modified to make optimal use of sleeping and
    self shutdown.

    Hiding UNIX interface:
    Only some versions of Linux do this well: Linspire (maybe), ASUS Eee PC
    (yes) ... vast work needs to be done.
    OS X does do an excellent job of hiding Unix's interfaces -- to the point of
    transparency.
    Overall: 30% work accomplished, 70% yet to be done (not all universally on
    Linux side).

    == Moral and conclusion ==
    Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading edge.
    OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    with Linux.
    Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is needed to maintain
    performance gains.
     
    Max Power, Feb 9, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Max Power

    Unruh Guest

    Zero information there. Linus is upset about something re the filesystem on
    OSX but the article does not say what.

    Both do what?
    This is a "sin" why? If you worship at the holy microkernel church, perhaps
    it is a sin. Otherwise it is philosophy that may or may not work better for
    your application.

    Again another sermon.

    Why do you want to "hide unix interface" whatever that means?
    No idea what his means.
    No idea what "work" this is.

    Your evidence that the kernel structure impacts performance adversely is
    what?
     
    Unruh, Feb 9, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You forgot the most telling two points. OSX is very pretty. But if you
    want it to do anything more than comes with Tiger/Leopard, you need to
    spend shitloads of money for the applications.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Feb 9, 2008
    #3
  4. Max Power

    Max Power Guest

    Linux as the only alternitive to OS9 -- for the older RISC PCs ... I did not
    know that this was the case.

    I never meant to cover this case, but needless to say Linux with some
    microkernal like fixes would probably run even better on older Macs (RISC,
    non 68x).

    Still there is no reason why OS X and Linux can't be at design / performance
    parity.


    ////////////////////////////////
     
    Max Power, Feb 10, 2008
    #4
  5. Max Power

    Max Power Guest

    I don't strictly believe in Microkernals.
    However, Microkernal design ideas and concepts have earned their keep many
    times over.
    Yet, I believe a new balance between adaptability and readability will need
    to be reached sometime in future.

    Linux (like OS X) is at its design limit when it comes to core OS (kernel)
    code.
    Having hundreds of thousands of lines of kernel code is just setting up
    conditions for KERNAL PANIC and Triple Faults.
    Putting the drivers into the 'user' privilege space -- and reducing the
    kernel size by 50% -- would make Linux even more robust than it already is.

    The Linux 'File Systems' to the extent that they are in the kernel needs to
    gradually be moved out of the kernel space.
    I don't mind ~3 file systems in the kernel area (FAT16, FAT32; NTFS(3.1)?
    and maybe ReiserFS + Swap FS).
    Other Unix like FS's should have fully support as usual -- just not in the
    kernel.
    I don't think that this will affect Linux's interoperability or performance
    or adaptability in any way -- so long as the code moves are open to public
    inspection.
    The user should not notice any change at installation or at any other point
    of operation.

    There is no reason why a future Linux can't be used on a spacecraft
    (remember the Voyager Programme) -- and run continuously for 10 or 20 years
    without a reboot. Minix and QNX (and to a lesser degree VxWorks) can do this
    now. That does not mean that Linux has to be a classical microkernel.
     
    Max Power, Feb 10, 2008
    #5
  6. Max Power

    Max Power Guest

    I don't strictly believe in Microkernals.

    However, Microkernal design ideas and concepts have earned their keep many
    times over.

    Yet, I believe a new balance between adaptability and relyability will need
    to be reached sometime in future.

    Linux (like OS X) is at its design limit when it comes to core OS (kernel)
    code.

    Having hundreds of thousands of lines of kernel code is just setting up
    conditions for KERNAL PANIC and Triple Faults.

    Putting the drivers into the 'user' privilege space -- and reducing the
    kernel size by 50% -- would make Linux even more robust than it already is.

    The Linux 'File Systems' to the extent that they are in the kernel needs to
    gradually be moved out of the kernel space.

    I don't mind ~3 file systems in the kernel area (FAT16, FAT32; NTFS(3.1)?
    and maybe ReiserFS + Swap FS).

    Other Unix like FS's should have fully support as usual -- just not in the
    kernel.

    I don't think that this will affect Linux's interoperability or performance
    or adaptability in any way -- so long as the code moves are open to public
    inspection.

    The user should not notice any change at installation or at any other point
    of operation.

    There is no reason why a future Linux can't be used on a spacecraft
    (remember the Voyager Programme) -- and run continuously for 10 or 20 years
    without a reboot. Minix and QNX (and to a lesser degree VxWorks) can do this
    now. That does not mean that Linux has to be a classical microkernel.
     
    Max Power, Feb 10, 2008
    #6
  7. Max Power hallucinated:
    They do? Where?
    Interesting. The kernel crew will probably disagree
    *That* has to be the reason I have not seen a kernel panic in several years.
    The last one was 6 or 7 years ago, when a disk started to fail.
    BTW, triple faults are something entirely different
    Ah yes.
    That is prolly nice of you. May I ask who made you "OSS culling committee
    chairman"?
    Naturally not. After all, they would work best there. Can't have that
    Naturally. After all, these recent attempts at hiding code must be stopped
    at all cost

    No. Best would be to completely halt any chnage to linux for a time, like 10
    years. One could make agreements with MS to introduce new versions at the
    same time MS innovates a new Windows version


    < snip more utter lunacy >

    Idiot

    Stay with your "micro kernel" Vista and just hide well enough that nobody is
    viewing such a display of complete stupidity
     
    Peter Köhlmann, Feb 10, 2008
    #7
  8. You mean, they would better waste processor power?
    MAy I ask what reason there would be to make linux *that* *much* slower?

    < snip bottom quote from an imbecile >
     
    Peter Köhlmann, Feb 10, 2008
    #8
  9. Max Power

    Mac G Guest

    Lots of free and open source APPs run on OS X, even Neo Office.
     
    Mac G, Feb 11, 2008
    #9
  10. Max Power

    Mac G Guest

    All G3s will run/boot OS 9.
    Sounds like you had a model specific installer,
    which comes with new Macs.
    The retail OS 9 installer, which I have, installs on all G3s, most G4s.
    and previous PPC Macs.

    OS 9 runs (boots) on PPC Macs from 1994 up to my (2003) G4/1.25 MDD, on
    which I run the latest OS X.5 Leopard.
    In Classic mode under OS X, OS 9 runs on all OS X supported PPC Macs,
    before the Intel Macs.
     
    Mac G, Feb 11, 2008
    #10
  11. Sure, but none of them do much of anything THAT useful.

    The really good stuff generally costs, and costs twice as much on a mac
    if its avaialable at all.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Feb 12, 2008
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.