[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model
    it's exposing many of the syscalls into relevant
    user-space objects which makes the other OSs approach
    neat. Coming from the kernel an outline of a common
    object model should be suggested which is then
    actually populated and refined futher by e.g. the GUI

    The other way around has shown not to work with the
    many application-designed component frameworks out
    there. In the other OS you'll be able to do things in
    I/O, process, GUI, data access etc. in a quite similar
    way. The current permutation in Linux for putting
    together an application is staggering, which can force
    people to use the lowest common denominator - like
    libc.a ;) - it's actually not funny.

    A core component model has to be defined by the kernel
    group and then trickle upward. That's the only way
    where you can sufficiently design in performance and
    security(*) considerations which I agree should allow
    Linux to scale as well as it does.

    (*) good example for the opportunity in leaping the
    other OS here: there is another big void in a sound
    security component properties right now. COM+ has
    quite a bit in it, but there is much more which could
    be done and people are keen on it. Another item where
    Linux could start to define the envelope.

    --- wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:13:55 PDT, you said:
    > >
    > > unfortunately it's rather a jump into elegance.
    > The
    > > other OS component model is quite well
    > architected.
    > > Hence what's needed is _a similar architecture
    > effort
    > > which may _abstract many things in the beginning
    > to be
    > > filled in later. Ther's a dire need for a sound
    > and
    > > similarly elegant (or better) model.
    > Two words: "syscall interface".
    > Most of what you're blathering about needs to happen
    > in userspace.
    > If there's disagreement over what GUI style to use,
    > the kernel is
    > NOT going to provide any guidance. KDE versus Gnome
    > versus the
    > other 23 window managers - that's all userspace.
    > The reason there's
    > 25 window managers is because 25 sets of people had
    > *different goals*.
    > The kernel wisely stayed *OUT OF THE WAY*.
    > With a single common object model, Linux can push
    > the envelope in ONE
    > direction. Which is why That Other System scales so
    > incredibly well from
    > a Zaurus to a 128-CPU NUMA box, handles different
    > GUIs for different goals,
    > and all the rest of that.....

    > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature

    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.023 / U:77.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site