Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:21:59 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Component-based Operating System. Message-ID: <20080730022159.GC36138@kokopelli.hydra> In-Reply-To: <488E4027.6070807@telenix.org> References: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0807281813020.5391@sdf.lonestar.org> <g6l4r9$hh1$1@ger.gmane.org> <488E4027.6070807@telenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--raC6veAxrt5nqIoY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 05:54:47PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > Ivan Voras wrote: > > Juan Carlos Villalobos wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am writing a paper on Component-based Operating Systems. I just > >> wanted to know if FreeBSD is an Operating System engineered based on > >> Components. > >> > >> I appreciate your input on this. > >=20 > > "Components" is a wide, wide term. Since FreeBSD as an operating system > > consists of separate libraries, headers, executables, and both the > > kernel and the userland have subsystems that are more-or-less autonomic > > and independent, you could say it's componentized. You need to be more > > specific to get a more specific answer. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > Yeah, that's true, but not very informative. Look, I don't follow OSes a= ll that > much anymore, but if I had to call up an OS that would be made up of more= of a > set of indenpendent pieces, I think I would choose the GNU Hurd OS. From > everything I read, it was never very successful, if one counts the abilit= y to > return some good throughput as being successful ... or, maybe they have s= ome > other characteristic which I'm not aware of. >=20 > Anyhow, the HURD (at least in concept) is far, far more of a component ba= sed OS > than anything else I'm aware of is. It's an interesting concept, at the = very > least, and I do understand it works. There are a bunch of modular microkernel architectures out there. Another that comes immediately to mind is the MIT Exokernel, for instance. Of course, last I checked, nobody was calling them "component-based" operating systems (especially since, in most cases, they're research kernels with a fine dusting of barely enough stuff to make them run over the top, and not really useful OSes). Microsoft has been using the phrase "component based" to talk about some of its OS research efforts, but as far as I'm aware MS has abandoned that market-speak. So . . . I still have no idea what the OP means by "component-based operating systems". --=20 Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Friedrich Nietzche: "Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity." --raC6veAxrt5nqIoY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkiP0EcACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKXunQCfTNf7xxCREHHF4m8FqY5GAyd8 mnoAoKmNtGTE8AQRzut1h6YYwQxfvNO8 =s4JW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --raC6veAxrt5nqIoY--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080730022159.GC36138>