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 124897
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by corentin on Mon 15th May 2006 19:44 UTC
Member since:

> Modularity: Modular approach is always considered as the good way in Software Engineering for creating softwares. Microkernels are more modular than monolithic. No matter how much they make a monolithic kernel logically modular, microkernel will always be more modular than monolithic.

Modularity is completely irrelevant to this debate. The difference between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel lies in their different dynamic behavior (heavyweight in the case of a microkernel vs quite lightweight for monolithic kernels), not in their static organization.

Reply Score: 1