this article reveals that the next version of windows won't be a from-the-ground-up rewrite, as had been rumored. microsoft's research arm built just such an operating system, however.
It seems like this article blames Window's bloat on the fact that it's not a microkernel, which makes no sense. Linux is also a monolithic kernel, and has remained (more or less) monolithic even though Andrew Tanenbaum has argued with Linus for years about it. Linus recently had this to say:
> "The whole argument that microkernels are somehow "more
secure" or "more stable" is also total crap. The fact that
each individual piece is simple and secure does not make
the aggregate either simple or secure. And the
argument that you can "just reload" a failed service and
not take the whole system down is equally flawed."
Window's bloat is from providing backwards compatibility for 20 years of poorly written third party apps and weird hardware - along with Microsoft's habit of bundling everything possible with their operating system... it has nothing to do with being a micro/monolithic kernel.
2 comments
[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 30.6 ms ] thread> "The whole argument that microkernels are somehow "more secure" or "more stable" is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure. And the argument that you can "just reload" a failed service and not take the whole system down is equally flawed."
Window's bloat is from providing backwards compatibility for 20 years of poorly written third party apps and weird hardware - along with Microsoft's habit of bundling everything possible with their operating system... it has nothing to do with being a micro/monolithic kernel.