> I can see through this sentiment and do not disagree but would like to also
respectfully add that a lot of chips of more complex nature ( as someone
pointed out ) already have existing stacks that interact with not just one
OS but
several OSes and as they go forward they deal with hardware and
architectural issues not necessarily
OS issues.
Proper hardware is developed with major OSes in mind from the very beginning.
The reason is simple: who is more powerful - Microsoft (or, say, Linux
community) or a small chip company? And, in your real world, it is the more
powerful who sets the way, and lesser powerful one will follow the way or quit
the game.
IMO a more flexible person who has an indepth understanding
would be more
useful than a fly by night driver writer who might not have gone through the
rigours of OS/ comp arch.
In-depth OS knowledge is a must for a kernel developer, but academic
background… sorry no.
Academia is just a different mindset from engineering in some major points, and
this is not only about the software.
More practically: for a Windows kernel project, I would prefer a person who
never heard on Dijkstra semaphores (and possibly on Dijkstra himself) if he
would heard on FAST_MUTEX and knows how it is implemented, to a person who have
read several books by Dijkstra, but who does not know what FAST_MUTEX is.
–
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com