Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!darrell
From: martin@felix.uucp (Martin McKendry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: Wisdom, a pedantically named operating system
Message-ID: <4687@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: 2 Mar 88 18:02:16 GMT
Sender: darrell@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 27
Approved: mod-os@sdcsvax.uucp


In article <4668@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> murray@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>>Frankly it doesn't sound like Wisdom is much of an operating system.  I
>
>I admit that in the current traditional mode it isn't.  What should be
>borne in mind is that operating systems tend to be getting smaller (IBM
>excepting!).  By that I mean less and less is being done in the ``kernel''
>and more and more is being done by ``user'' processes.

I have to take exception to this.  Academic and research operating systems
seem to think small kernels are a wonderful goal.  This is fine.  It makes
the system easier to add to, and to test.  However, there is a cost
in efficiency.  

Industrial kernels are getting bigger and bigger for this reason.  In
my opinion, a fruitful area of research is how to organize large kernels.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being big (where big is, say,
order of 500 KB).  We have the memory for it.  The only thing a 'small'
kernel does is provide tighter protection boundaries, at the cost of
efficiency and less application-oriented kernel interfaces.  And you
still have to hire operating system engineers to build the "user" processes
that do such functions as maintaining networks and file systems.


--
Martin S. McKendry;    FileNet Corp;	{hplabs,trwrb}!felix!martin
Strictly my opinion; all of it