Talk:Comparison of operating system kernels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of operating system kernels article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] include Windows Kernel in the list?

What about including Windows Kernel in the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.31.90 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

The NT kernel is in the list; that's what's used in W2K (NT 5.0), WXP (NT 5.1 in 32-bit form and 5.2 in 64-bit form), and WServer2K3 (NT 5.2). The old "Windows OT" (W95, W98, WMe) kernel might or might not be interesting at this point; add it if you think it interesting. Guy Harris 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why i added a used in section

kenrel are a small part of a an operating system and alone they are useless

In order to be usefull some uttilities or api need to be ported to ther kernel

for example the GNu coreutils had to be ported to the Hurd kernel

and so some times some people port the kernel to several api/uttilities,such as the FreeBSD or the XNU kernnel

some kenrel are even capable to have different subsystem such as windowsNT and ReactOS kernel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.189.165.28 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] is mklinux a kernel?

can we consider mklinux a full fetured kernel?

because i understood that mklinux was a port of the linux kernel to the mach kernel

it is like l4linux or colinux

if we it is true and we choose to keep it we must create another tab for the ported kernel in another section such as == == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.189.165.28 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Multiple CPU support"?

So what does "multiple CPU support" mean? Does it mean "supports a machine with more than one CPU", which seems a bit redundant given that there's a column for SMP support, or does it mean "supports more than one CPU instruction set"? Guy Harris 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further work on article

Someone could read this paper on TRIX and expand that and this article:

  • Ward, S.A. TRIX: a Network-oriented Operating System. COMPCON, Spring 1980, pp. 344-349.

- Lentower 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Kernel and PE

Is it really suitable to list 'Yes' there for something that uses a totally third party application to perform? I feel this table will get pretty distorted when we're listing emulators as well. -- Andrz 09:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I changed it to {{some}}, although I am not completely sure that's fair either. The only thing that kernel can do with PE executables is the capability of recognizing arbitrary executable headers through binfmt_misc and passing them on to the user space handler program. I am unsure if other OSes where Wine works on top of support this.
Also note that Wine is technically not an emulator — it's a native compatibility layer. -- intgr 08:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HURD

GNU's Hurd is not a kernel. Hurd is a collection of servers that runs on the Mach kernel. Read the website. 75.70.143.81 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that they have ditched the Mach microkernel and are now moving to L4. While the "core kernel" itself indeed is an L4 or Mach, microkernels alone are in no way comparable to the monolithic kernels of today's operating systems — they can only do context switching and essential memory management. If you want to compare them, you need to compare them with all the services that actually provide the functionality. -- intgr [talk] 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows NT kernel and "UNIX binaries"

Can you check this article?: Comparison_of_kernels#Binary_format_support

Does WinNT support a.out, ELF (UNIX binaries), HUNK (AmigaOS bin) and Mach-O (OS X/NextStep/Darwin bin)? Maybe WinNT support COFF, because EXE PE is a modified version of the Unix COFF file format, but I don't that Windows support Linux, AmigaOS or MacOS X bianry formats. Windows NT have only partial support for POSIX API (and OS/2/NET/Win32), not for UNIX (and Amiga/Darwin) bin.

Sorry for my bad English, but it isn't my native language.

83.23.15.210 (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The claimed support for all the other executable formats was added on the 13th of December by an IP with only one other edit, presumably as vandalism; I've now reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out! -- simxp (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)