Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 19:54 UTC, submitted by Gary
The micro vs. monolithic kernel debate is now very much alive. Not too long ago, I wrote an article on the merits of microkernels, while a week later we featured a retort. Now, the greatest proponent of the microkernel steps in-- yes, Andy Tanenbaum writes: "Microkernels - long discarded as unacceptable because of their lower performance compared with monolithic kernels - might be making a comeback in operating systems due to their potentially higher reliability, which many researchers now regard as more important than performance." Now, we only need Torvalds to chime in, and it's 1992 all over again.
Permalink for comment 121598
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-10-06
I won't pretend to be an expert on this, but reading the arguments I get the feeling that micro kernels are trying to solve a problem that may not exist. Yes I'm willing to accept they'd probably be even more stable, but my monolithic Linux kernel is more than stable enough for me already. I've used Linux full-time for over a year and a half now, and the kernel has never let me down. I've managed to screw up none kernel things so bad once or twice that just hitting the reset button was the quickest way out, but the kernel hasn't failed once.
So for me the question is not whether a micro kernel might be more stable or more secure, but whether I should take a performance hit when the system I'm using is already stable and secure enough.