Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:16:54 -0600 (CST) | | From | Justin Bradford <> | | Subject | Re: 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 justin@ukans.edu
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |