Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 20:10 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "This aims to be the most comprehensive kernel comparison of the latest most popular UNIX style kernel versus the latest most popular current Windows kernel. A kind of kernel comparison FAQ. In Q4 2006, this means Linux 2.6.18/2.6.19 kernel versus the Windows Server 2003 R2 kernel. In Q1 2007, this will mean Linux 2.6.20 kernel versus Windows Vista kernel."
Permalink for comment 185277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Apples and Oranges?
by egarland on Sat 25th Nov 2006 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apples and Oranges?"
egarland
Member since:
2005-08-05

I suppose since one of the side benefits of microkernels is being able to easily implement dynamically loadable and unloadable parts of the os, modules do make Linux more like some microkernels but calling it "microkernel-like" isn't really correct. It's monolithic to the extreme, nothing like a microkernel. Loadable and unloadable parts of the kernel have basically nothing to do with whether a kernel is a microkernel or not. That'd be like categorizing plants and calling grass "tree-like" because it's green.

There have been great debates lately about microkernel vs monolithic and the consensus is that NT gave up the microkernel architecture for speed. The kernel was based on the source of a microkernel as a starting point, but they abandoned the microkernel architecture early on. They abandoned the fundamental feature of context switches between everything but the core message passing subsystem which defines the microkernel architecture. The Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate is still active on the topic of the wisdom of microkernels but both sides seem to agree that NT is not a microkernel and never has been.

Edited 2006-11-25 10:02

Reply Parent Score: 2