GPL v2 or v3 or any subsequent versions do not absolve you of the liability of patent violations. I assume that you know the difference between patents and copyright laws in various regions?2nd I dont want to develop such stuff so it does not really matter how you come to a good micro-kernel, another problem is that the linux kernel is to unfree, so if you start from a freebsd kernel you get patent law suits like hell, with linux u cant fork your code to normal gpl, just to a modified version (v2-only).
The assertion that a BSD license makes you more susceptible to patent violation is ludicrous at best.
This is all just hot air. The Java apis do not make android slow. The implementation of the Java apis may. What are you basing this on anyway? Do you have any hard truths to back this up?Android is a piece of shit, and if we talk about speed android is the best example that for most people (most people arent linux network admins, but most have a smartphone) speed does not matter the java-api makes android so slow and especialy ram-hungry that you need basicly double the memory and double the cpu speed to have the same speed than a apple or microsoft phone needs. That leeds to the need of bigger akkus...
Again, just hot air. Can you provide proof that iOS performs 1000x faster than android for any given work load?BTW I never said that NOBODY cares about speed, of course some geeks do, but most people dont (android). btw I dont know about apples smartphone os, but its a hybrit? kernel or something and liek a said 1000x faster than garbage java + linux in android.
This is subjective and mostly false.AND one nother thing if lisenses would not matter everybody would switch to bsd because its cleaner and better than linux.
Note: I prefer FreeBSD to any Linux distro.
Windows is far from dead even if you counted smartphones and tablets as PCs. You are throwing a lot of hot air around.I wanted to discuss why I think a alternative to linux and bsd is needed and most likely it should be a micro kernel, because linux design is old, yes its mainstream now, its the dominant system now, windows is on its die-bed, if there would be no hardware-windows bundle it would be even worse... but I count smartphones and tablets as pcs and there windows is dead.
You claim that an alternative to Linux and BSD is needed and that it should be a microkernel but you have not said why this is so.
Why is this alternative needed and who needs it?
Yes, for all intents and purposes, the HURD is dead. The HURD suffers from quite a number of deficiencies and it may be easier to re-implement it from scratch than fixing it.And that will not change for the next 5-10 years maybe even 20 years. But maybe Hurd is really dead (even Hurd was never = Hurd it was different oses as far as I read it, so which hurd in the future is now dead would be the question) but I just say, linux is about rewriting everything why should the kernel be the only thing where this will never happen?
Linux is not about rewriting everything.
No one needs to rewrite the Linux kernel.
Anyone is free to implement a microkernel and a microkernel based operating system. This does not need to have anything to do with Linux.
I'm quite interested in microkernel OS development and I follow the development of a few of them. Some of the better ones:
http://genode.org/ You should really check this one out.
Richard Braun (HURD guy) is working on a replacement for MACH to create a HURD-like system. He thinks the HURD is dead also.
You should note that all microkernels are not created equal. The difference between any two can be even greater than the different between Windows NT and Linux. So just saying "microkernel" means nothing at all. A lot of people even claim that some kernels are microkernels when they are in fact monolithic kernels(Haiku' kernel, XNU. Windows NT and a few others). Even calling them hybrids does not make sense from the perspective of someone who understands what a microkernel is and how it differs from a monolithic kernel.