3 ms·

Compare Linux and QNX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX) and tell me which one is bloated.

by ecq 17y ago

ido 17y ago
Do QNX provide the same features as linux?
ecq 17y ago
You can add "features" to QNX to make it comparable to Linux. The only difference is, since it's a microkernel, adding a feature to QNX won't make the kernel bloated. and that is the whole point i am trying to make.
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago
  But adding the features means adding them to userland processes. While this technically doesn't make the kernel bloated, it still means the bloated code has to be run, and has to occupy L1i. Having them in other processes only means they will eat even more cpu, as you have to use time to sync the processes.
- praptak 17y ago
  "adding a feature to QNX won't make the kernel bloated" Yeah, you have a piece of code named "the kernel" which you can point at and tell that it isn't bloated. But you can do this in Linux too, if you compile everything as loadable modules. That is just creative accounting of the bloat.
  - rapind 17y ago
    I disagree. Sure it's bloated if you need / want all the features that create the bloat. However, if there are user's who require very few features then they end up with a very slim system. It's only marketing spin if you will always need all of the features in order to do anything meaningful.
    - jerf 17y ago
      After that reply, I find myself wondering if you actually know what the "Linux module system" is, because there is no difference between what you claim is an advantage and what Linux actually has. Are you still having this debate with a purely academic definition of "monolithic" vs. "micro" kernels? Because neither of them exist anymore, and haven't for a long time; it's like CISC vs. RISC, in that arguing about it today is really missing the point since most everything is a mix. You need to address what Linux actually is, and what real microkernels exist, and what real performance they have, not regurgitate boring arguments from the 1980s that have simply been superceded (rather than one side "winning"). In fact, this goes for all you other commenters still having this argument. "Compare and contrast a microkernel running on CISC vs. a monolithic kernel running on RISC. Which will run best on a top-of-the-line Amiga, and how can this be best leveraged into flaming those who disagree with you?"
  - ecq 17y ago
    linux kernel is still bloated even if you compile everything as a loadable kernel module. (except rtlinux)

Compare Linux and QNX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX) and tell me which one is bloated.

by ecq 17y ago

Compare Linux and QNX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX) and tell me which one is bloated.

ido 17y ago

Do QNX provide the same features as linux?

ecq 17y ago

You can add "features" to QNX to make it comparable to Linux. The only difference is, since it's a microkernel, adding a feature to QNX won't make the kernel bloated. and that is the whole point i am trying to make.

Tuna-Fish 17y ago
But adding the features means adding them to userland processes. While this technically doesn't make the kernel bloated, it still means the bloated code has to be run, and has to occupy L1i. Having them in other processes only means they will eat even more cpu, as you have to use time to sync the processes.
praptak 17y ago
"adding a feature to QNX won't make the kernel bloated" Yeah, you have a piece of code named "the kernel" which you can point at and tell that it isn't bloated. But you can do this in Linux too, if you compile everything as loadable modules. That is just creative accounting of the bloat.
- rapind 17y ago
  I disagree. Sure it's bloated if you need / want all the features that create the bloat. However, if there are user's who require very few features then they end up with a very slim system. It's only marketing spin if you will always need all of the features in order to do anything meaningful.
  - jerf 17y ago
    After that reply, I find myself wondering if you actually know what the "Linux module system" is, because there is no difference between what you claim is an advantage and what Linux actually has. Are you still having this debate with a purely academic definition of "monolithic" vs. "micro" kernels? Because neither of them exist anymore, and haven't for a long time; it's like CISC vs. RISC, in that arguing about it today is really missing the point since most everything is a mix. You need to address what Linux actually is, and what real microkernels exist, and what real performance they have, not regurgitate boring arguments from the 1980s that have simply been superceded (rather than one side "winning"). In fact, this goes for all you other commenters still having this argument. "Compare and contrast a microkernel running on CISC vs. a monolithic kernel running on RISC. Which will run best on a top-of-the-line Amiga, and how can this be best leveraged into flaming those who disagree with you?"
- ecq 17y ago
  linux kernel is still bloated even if you compile everything as a loadable kernel module. (except rtlinux)