[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux Kernel constraints!
> Recently(dec.) in WindowsNT magazine comparisons/similarities between
> various flavours of unix and nt had come. In the same article Linux was
> ignored as enterprise os on account of following kernel 'limitations' :

Windows NT magazine also ran an article stating all Linux programs had to
distribute their source. In the same article, they mention Oracle,
Informix, and Corel porting. So where do I download Oracle 8 source?!?
The Win NT writers either aren't bright enough to understand the LGPL,
or they're deliberately spreading misinformation.
Either way, I can't imagine any group of people less qualified to comment
on the Linux kernel.

> 1. kernel is not preemptive. ie even a higher priority user thread cant
> cause another thread to be swapped if the other thread is presently running
> in privileged/kernel context.
> 2. kernel is not reentrant. ie.only one thread in kernel context at a time.

I believe these complaints may apply to the 2.0 kernel, due to kernel wide
spin-locks, but not 2.2

> 3. kernel is not multi processing in the sense that on multiprocessor
> systems it will run on only one cpu at a time.

This I don't believe. What would be the point of SMP support if it only
used one processor at a time? So either they're looking at a kernel prior
to SMP, or they have no idea what they're talking about. Or possibly, I've
misunderstood the statement.

> will somebody can clarify these doubts and version which enabled it to be
> otherwise.

I'm by no means a kernel expert, but I didn't see any other responses.
Anyway, I might be wrong.

Justin Bradford

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.200 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site