“Haiku is not even Alpha and you put it down. Well, just a little info for you. Linux took many years before people even looked at or used it and to even get to where it is today. You really think Linux was perfect from the get go? It wasn’t! Can you at least wait till R1 before you become so critical? Maybe too hard for you? Haiku will have many changes made by the time R1 comes out.”
I don’t see anywhere in this thread that I or anyone else “put down” Haiku. My previous post concerned your misleading statements about Haiku’s kernel and claims that seem to be a lot of hot air.
Linus announced his project (then unnamed), after he’d spent a couple of months on the bare essentials, and the announcement went out about ten years prior to the creation of the OpenBeOS mailing list, in August 1991. Almost immediately there were other contributors. Before that year was out Linux was self-hosting, development of Linux began to take place primarily on Linux and early the next year the first Linux distributions came into existence. About 2.5 years after the announcement Linux 1.0 was released, and by the time Linux was five it was the foundation for a huge increase in uptake of Internet access, hoards of people setting up web sites, email and other services using Linux on cheap x86 PCs, by this point the kernel was SMP-capable and had been ported to several architectures including 64-bit Alpha.
“You see that the Hybrid model has moved the File & Unix Servers to user mode”
That’s nice in a picture. Now, take a look at the Haiku source code. File-handling and all the rest of the core “Unix-like” services are handled by code running in Ring 0. If this picture is what “hybrid” means then Haiku isn’t a hybrid, and nor are NT (Windows) or XNU (Mac OS X) in each case all this stuff is actually handled by the kernel running in Ring 0.
But your central problem all along is that Wikipedia isn’t (and explicitly claims not to be) an authoritative source. If you want to say that Microsoft or Apple claim this or that, you need specific sources from Microsoft and Apple, preferably people from their quite small kernel development teams - not a link to Wikipedia. What’s the source for the diagram you’re now relying on? Who says this picture rather than Microsoft’s “modified microkernel” or Apple’s “Unix server bolted to a microkernel” is the right one to define “hybrid”?
One thing that you could do (it might involve you asking questions and doing a lot of reading) to help the person who originally asked this question, is to draw an equivalent diagram of Haiku.
“There are definitely parts of Haiku that run outside kernel space… such as the app_server (and thus, the video accelerants), the input_server, the print_server, and a few other pieces. These parts are not “applications” in the same sense - as they’re essentially layers upon the kernel which talk to the hardware drivers through protocols that abstract the rest of the system from them.”
Virtually all operating systems do this, the ones that don’t usually don’t have a separate userspace at all, often for some technical reason (the original Amiga hardware is missing hardware you’d want for this). The most obvious example on Unix systems is the X display server, but even before X’s ancestors came into existence in the 1980s there were comparatively privileged processes, e.g. it seems hardly worth mentioning today but in the 1970s a getty was a pretty important piece of software, managing teletypes and the later CRT terminals for the OS.