Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are modern microkernels that are POSIX compliant and have a much lower footprint than linux. There are... but they're not > I think the most prominent issue, people points out here is performance. That's literally what I said at the start of the conversation! > However, it's very obvious to me that the extra abstraction of having a kernel vs having no kernel on an constrained device costs performance, and it'…
>It's sometimes hard to get a grasp on the old-world way of software development if it's not something you grew up with. I lived through that, the first PC I used had DOS with 5'25" floppies. On 3DFX, it was a mini-GL in firmware, low level. Glide somehow looked better than the later games with DirectX, up to Directx7 when games looked a bit less "blocky". >For example Linux 24 years ago didn't have a package manager…
I wouldn’t agree that Slackware in 2000 was on a par with Windows 2000 though. “Good enough”, sure. But Linux had some annoying quirks and Windows 2000 was a surprisingly good desktop OS (“surprising“ because Microsoft usually fuck up every attempt at systems software). That said, I’d still run FreeBSD in the back end given the choice between Windows 2000 and something UNIX like.