Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th May 2006 10:15 UTC, submitted by Andy Tanenbaum
OSNews, Generic OSes And no, the microkernel debate is not over yet. In a reply to various comments made over the past few weeks, Andy Tanenbaum has written an article to address these. He first clearly states he respects and likes Torvalds, and that "we may disagree on some technical issues, but that doesn't make us enemies. Please don't confuse disagreements about ideas with personal feuds." The article states: "Over the years there have been endless postings on forums such as Slashdot about how microkernels are slow, how microkernels are hard to program, how they aren't in use commercially, and a lot of other nonsense. Virtually all of these postings have come from people who don't have a clue what a microkernel is or what one can do. I think it would raise the level of discussion if people making such postings would first try a microkernel-based operating system [...]. Has a lot more credibility."
Permalink for comment 124887
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: RE[3]: OSX a microkernel?
by dennis on Mon 15th May 2006 18:50 UTC
dennis
Member since:
2006-01-23

Ironically Tanembaum doesn't mention NT as a real microkernel and says instead that its more monolithic, despite of the fact that NT was written from scratch and based on Mach

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computer_science)#Hybrid_kernels_.28aka_modified_microkernels.29

Hybrid kernels are essentially a compromise between the monolithic kernel approach and the microkernel system. This implies running some servers in kernel space in order to cut down on the amount of system calls occurring in a traditional microkernel. Nevertheless, there is still kernel code running in their own memory space.

Reply Score: 1