> Sometimes I think Linux is happy just copying the UNIX and Mainframe designs, without much OS innovation. This is difficult to answer, but I'll try. Note th

> Sometimes I think Linux is happy just copying the UNIX and Mainframe designs, without much OS innovation. This is difficult to answer, but I'll try. Note that this is from merely an interested person's view, I'm not a kernel dev or anything. Linux has to strike a balance between compatibility, stability and innovation. The goal of Linux isn't "OS innovation", the kernel people would rather that innovation occur in userspace (at least from my reading of the tea leaves), and that is happening a lot. However, Linux doesn't have the power to "break out" and try something radically different, as it has actual users with billions of dollars invested in Linux that rely on its stability and its compatibility with the hardware and software they use. Symbian and QNX are not mainstream kernels, as they really only exist in embedded devices, and really only support ARM and a couple other architectures. Minix, GNU/Hurd and the Microsoft research are just that - research. No user base to speak of, no commercial uses, etc. I think the most successful microkernel wasn't actually micro, but a hybrid - Windows NT.