🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30FDA8FA.2C37@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

    kevin eugene scruggs wrote:
    
    >         User machines should be designed around the user, not OS
    >         paradigms that are more appropirate for systems that actually
    >         resemble those where the paradigms were developed. (ie
    >         most clones dont have the hardware concurrency to support
    >         bloated overblown monolithic OS's)
    
    I agree that having monolitic OSes basically is a bad design (beacuse
    they will be usually harder to get stable and in the long run also more
    difficult to extend or upgrade).
    
    The MacOS is monolithic in it's design.
    
    OS/2 and VMS isn't (they both have a layerd architecture).
     
    NT isn't (it's a layerd OS with a client/server desing).
    
    m a r t i n n
    
    -- 
    Martin Nisshagen
    MTS Technology, Sweden
    martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)


I'm having a hard time understanding your statement that the MacOS is
monolithic. Could you be a little more specific; maybe with a few examples
illustrating your view. 

The MacOS seems fairly well partioned to me. After all, OS services are
organized into managers and high-level managers call lower level managers.
This seems layered to me. Do you have a hard time deciding which MacOS
manager to use?

And consider that too many layers can be as confusing as not enough. In
general, I would say that layers of an OS, like hierarchical menus or
hierarchical directories, should be limited in depth. Otherwise the user
gets lost in the tree.

Tom