Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Apr 2006 15:36 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Right in between a car crash and Easter, I knew I had to write a Sunday Eve Column. So here I am, digesting vast quantities of chocolate eggs (and I don't even like chocolate), craving for coffee (for me about as special as breathing), with the goal of explaining to you my, well, obsession with microkernels. Why do I like them? Why do I think the microkernel paradigm is superior to the monolithic one? Read on.
Permalink for comment 115321
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Please take note that ring0 and ring3 are Linux-only terms, and meaningly outside discussions of the Linux kernel only

LOL, read the Intel manuals dude - it's OS-agnostic term meaning "privilege level", and has roots in MULTICS (IIRC it had 8 od them ;)

Besides, the NT Kernel and Mac OS X kernel aren't monolithic, but hybrid.

Wrong again - NT is even more monolithic than Linux, since it has GUI (win32k.sys) in kernel-mode. Read the relevant literature (Solomon/Russinovich for examble).

As for the MacOS - it does contain the Mach microkernel - but, as I said, it's not used as a microkernel. See what the author of upcoming "MacOS X Internals" book says on this topic:

XNU's Mach component is based on Mach 3.0, although it's not used as a microkernel. The BSD subsystem is part of the kernel and so are various other subsystems that are typically implemented as user-space servers in microkernel systems.

The term "hybrid microkernel" is IMHO just a marketing propaganda dating from mid 1990s when NT 4.0 was released. NT is even more monolithic than traditional UNIXen.

Reply Parent Score: 5