The immortality of operating systems or is research in operating systems still justified?

  • Jürgen Nehmer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 563)


The above discussion has shown that there is a growing need to cope with the past when discussing new operating system concepts including the underlying system architecture. The value of future system architectures will be measured in terms of their ability to support the incremental substitution of existing operating systems by hardware/software elements of the new system structure.

Basic research in operating systems aiming at better modularity, portability, fault tolerance etc. is still considered an area of utmost relevance. However, more applied research projects are needed to systematically study the effects encountered while mapping old systems and interfaces onto new system architectures. A too narrow focus on UNIX may mirror the wrong illusion of a (non-existent) universality of the abstractions defined in today's state-of-the-art distributed OS kernels.


System Architecture Applied Research Project Technology Substitution Operating System Kernel Utmost Relevance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BRO82.
    D.R. Brownbridge, L.F. Marshall, B. Randell: The Newcastle Connection or UNIXes of the World Unite!, Software-Practice and Experience Vol. 12, 1147–1162 (1982)Google Scholar
  2. BOR89.
    T.L. Borden, J.P. Hennessy, J.W. Rymarczyk: Multiple Operating Systems on One Processor Complex, IBM Systems Journal Vol. 28, 104–123 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. CHE88.
    D. Cheriton: The V Distributed System, CACM 31, 314–333 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. DOM88a.
    P. Domann, V. Meyer, U. Weng-Beckmann: Entwicklungstrends bei UNIX und im Umfeld von UNIX, Teil 1, Informatik-Spektrum 183–194 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. DOM88b.
    P. Domann, V. Meyer, U. Weng-Beckmann: Entwicklungstrends bei UNIX und im Umfeld von UNIX, Teil 2, Informatik-Spektrum 264–276 (1988)Google Scholar
  6. FAU90.
    D. Fauth, J. Gossels, D. Hartman, B. Johnson, R. Kumar, N. Leser, D. Lounsbury, D. Mackey, C. Shue, T. Smith, J. Steiner, W. Tuvell: OSF Distributed Computing Environment Rationale, OSF, Cambridge May 1990Google Scholar
  7. HAB76.
    A.N. Habermann, L. Flou, L. Cooprider: Modularization and Hierarchy in a Family of Operating Systems, CACM 19, 266–272 (1976)Google Scholar
  8. KAI87.
    M. Kaiserswerth: Verteilte Dateisysteme unter UNIX: Eine Gegenüberstellung verschiedener Lösungen, Informationstechnik it 29, Heft 6, 290–398 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. Mul86.
    S.J. Mullender, A.S. Tanenbaum: The Design of a Capbility-Based Distributed Operating System, The Computer Journal, Vol. 29, N. 4, 289–300 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. RAS89.
    R. Rashid, D. Julin, D. Orr, R. Sanzi, R. Baron, A. Forin, D. Golub, M. Jones: Mach: A Foundation for System Software, Tech. Report, Dept. of Computer Science, CMU Sept. 1989Google Scholar
  11. ROZ88.
    M. Rozier, V. Abrossimov, F. Armand, I. Boule, M. Gien, M. Guillemont, F. Herrmann, C. Kaiser, S. Langlois, P. Leonard, W. Neuhauser: CHORUS Distributed Operating Systems, Technical Report CS/TR-88-7.6, Chorus Systems, Nov. 1988Google Scholar
  12. TAN85.
    A.S. Tanenbaum, R.v. Renesse: Distributed Operating Systems, ACM Computing Surveys 17, 419–470 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Nehmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich InformatikUniversität KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations