Originally posted here by R0n1n
Chsh, I must disagree with you, first of all some OS seems to be far more secure then other and still allow folks to use them, so there is a mixed bag of whats good and bad, it seems that we have the current idea of "well thats just the way it works and it can`t change, so tough". Also the current level of security being afforded to users would not appear too hot if the exploits and constant stream of new security products are anything to go by.
Microsoft has done a good job of blurring the line between Operating System requirement and Application with their inclusion of potentially harmful elements into the OS, however Windows can be made pretty well as secure as any Linux or Unix can when using the same/similar file permissions structures.

Secondly, the Linux Kernel absolutely has grown in size (so I am most definately not starting a linux v Windows argument). Way back in 94 the compressed kernel size was approx 2mb, now its at around 28, true lots of this is due to new drivers etc..but some of it isn`t.
Actually, most of it is drivers. I hope you're referring to source, because I can build a compressed kernel image here that's under 2MB easily. Mine is only like 2MB as is and that has the driver for my TV tuner, my sound card, SCSI, and a few USB things built in statically (not modules). The config for the kernel is attached, if you're curious.
Here's how it looks on the filesystem:
Code:
$ ls -lh /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.9
-rw-r--r--  1 root root 2.0M Nov 22 22:36 /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.9
The Kernel does contain more features then it did 5 years ago
Only insofar as supporting new technologies. Again, drivers. The scheduler is different, the memory management is different, etc... Those however were still present 5 years ago. You aren't seeing integration of anything more than drivers for new stuff.

and the general evolution of desktop OS's seems to follow the pattern of putting more into the kernel in the hopes that this speeds things up and makes it more stable (its also easier then making things modular).
Which in and of itself is a nonsensical statement; The more elements you add to a piece of software, the buggier and less stable it becomes. The stablest software always adheres to the KISS principle.

Sure the Windows Kernel has grown, which is why there are so many problems, but MS is not alone in this approach.
Really? Who else is following that approach?

see, no Windows v Linux arguement, don`t care about that, its irrelevant to the conversation, want to talk about overall OS design and architecture.
Something few people are qualified or capable of discussing? Stick to how it affects the security of the box, keep away from the blanket statements, and you're close.

Personally, I'm not so sure what's wrong with discussing the OSes separately, why not simply say "this thread will be about [Windows|Linux]"? That eliminates half the problems in your statements right off the bat.