Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2006 21:25 UTC, submitted by luzr
OSNews, Generic OSes Torvalds has indeed chimed in on the micro vs. monolithic kernel debate. Going all 1992, he says: "The whole 'microkernels are simpler' argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. The whole argument that microkernels are somehow 'more secure' or 'more stable' is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure. And the argument that you can 'just reload' a failed service and not take the whole system down is equally flawed." My take: While I am not qualified to reply to Linus, there is one thing I want to say: just because it is difficult to program, does not make it the worse design.
Permalink for comment 123087
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

> This makes no sense, IMO. Synchronous, signal-based applications abound. There are spiking (pulsed) neural networks, spreadsheet cells, etc... all over the place and they work perfectly.

You fail to understand the following: there is no "one size fits all" solution to every imaginable engineering problem. Synchronous programming languages are great to solve certain classes of problems, as do functional languages, imperative languages, logic languages, declarative languages, etc.

It's OK to be excited about a cool technology; just keep in mind it won't bring world peace (nor automagically solve all software reliability problems).

The best way to obtain software quality is to put the right tools for the job in the hands of open-minded people.

Reply Parent Score: 3