







Part 1 introduced the myth and looked at the buzz behind Linux. Here in Part 2, I'll take apart a second argument given for moving Mac OS X to a Linux kernel:



Linux' Performance

Performance comes through optimization. The fastest cars on the road have specialized tires, huge engines, and throw out every unnecessary pound of weight to make them light, fast and zippy. They're optimized, but only for speed. If you've ever driven a super elite sports car, you'll probably remember how uncomfortably cramped they are, how few kids you can cram in the back seat, and how there's no real stereo system or air conditioning.



One of Linux' primary advantages is its flexibility in optimization. You can build a tiny Linux or a supercomputer monster Linux. You can tailor Linux to serving webpages or database requests, or to run a PVR, PBX, or a PDA.



The only thing Linux has had real trouble with is capturing the consumer desktop market. No major hardware vendors are currently pushing Linux as a real Windows replacement; few even offer a token product. At least for now, Linux' strengths have been applied elsewhere.



That makes it difficult to make clear and substantial comparisons between Mac OS X, which is sold almost exclusively as a friendly desktop, and Linux, which has been profitable, popular, and optimized for nearly everything but use a friendly desktop. So what's the basis for saying that Linux has a much faster kernel than Mac OS X's?







According to Mark Stephens (writing as Robert X Cringely):



"Why would Apple want a new kernel? Speed. Quite simply, a monolithic kernel like the one used in Linux or most of the other Open Source Unix clones is inherently two to three times faster for integer calculations than the Mach microkernel presently used in OS X 10.4. That's why the world hasn't embraced xServes, for example, because for simple web or database service they are slower and serve fewer users."







His sweeping generalization is wrong on many counts: he's been duped by the Mac OS X Microkernel Myth, he makes a wild stab into fiction by referring to integer calculations, and he mismingles speculation about the Xserve's mindshare with his unsupported assumptions about performance.



He does prove a great point however: speaking confidently from your gut can make what you say sound convincing even if you don't have any facts. It's called truthiness. Where did Cringely get his gut feeling that a different kernel would be, not just potentially somewhat faster, but "inherently" several times faster?



No doubt from a couple of highly publicized benchmark tests comparing Mac OS X systems with Linux servers. In each case, those doing the benchmarks had little understanding of how Mac OS X works or how to optimize its performance, but did use optimizations for Linux. Sound suspicious?

