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 123180
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: modularity
by gilboa on Wed 10th May 2006 20:53 UTC in reply to "modularity"
Member since:

Ok, Can i use dynamically loadable 2.14 driver on 2.16 kernel?

A. This has nothing to do with Micro vs. Monolithic kernel debate; if anything, it shows you lack of understanding what debate is all about.
B. The reason you won't be able to load 2.4 drivers on a 2.6 kernel is simple: ABI changes. If micro-kernel X has changed its kernel-land to user-land interface between version 1.0 to version 2.0, a 1.0 driver will be just as incompatible as 2.4 drivers are today.

Reply Parent Score: 1