Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 19:54 UTC, submitted by Gary
OSNews, Generic OSes The micro vs. monolithic kernel debate is now very much alive. Not too long ago, I wrote an article on the merits of microkernels, while a week later we featured a retort. Now, the greatest proponent of the microkernel steps in-- yes, Andy Tanenbaum writes: "Microkernels - long discarded as unacceptable because of their lower performance compared with monolithic kernels - might be making a comeback in operating systems due to their potentially higher reliability, which many researchers now regard as more important than performance." Now, we only need Torvalds to chime in, and it's 1992 all over again.
Thread beginning with comment 121594
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tanenbaum is right !!!
by sathishmls on Sat 6th May 2006 05:15 UTC
sathishmls
Member since:
2005-11-13

What he says is perfectly correct.

if IPC, Memory management those which has a complete programming with no bugs(since the codes for these may be small) and which wont have any frequent code change, only runs in the kernel and everything else(remaining drivers) which might have code change even daily runs in the user-level, will result in a good secured and reliable OS.

frankly linux had nothing special when it started.its a just weak kernel which is not at all portable.
the only thing he made which made linux to start is changed its license to GPL and build his kernel with all the GNU utilities like the powerfull GCC and nothing else.since at that time many eager programmers were waiting for a free OS which at that time only GNU/Linux was available, they started to coding this GNU/Linux.

If Linus would have written a microkernel(as suggested by Tanenbaum) even a buggy and not at all portable kernel at that time and joined that with GNU, by now it would have been very great sparkling OS. since he was only a student, he can do only easy coding and that was the reason he wrote linux kernel.
a monolithic kernel is very easy to write.anyone who knows little system programming with kernel concepts can a write a monolithic kernel.but only a good programmer with high creativity can write a microkernel.

The big mistake Tanenbaum has done was he didnt realise the power of GNU and how it will change the future.if he would have joined his hands at that time with GNU, now everyone would have been running an OS with 100% perfection, portable and secured.
another interesting person was Jochen Liedtke who is also a very high creative and talented programmer like Tanenbaum.

i could say very high talented programmer with great creativity are

Tanenbaum, Richard Stallman, Jochen Liedtke

a small ordinary programmer who got his name and fame because of GNU GPL is

Linus Torvalds

Even now if all people starts to code the MINIX code with GNU's utilities, and concentrate on it, surely within 1 year, the same great OS can appear.its possible.but for that Tanenbaum and Richard Stallman should plan well. and also all the good people.

Hope this happens !!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tanenbaum is right !!!
by Wrawrat on Sat 6th May 2006 14:53 in reply to "Tanenbaum is right !!!"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

frankly linux had nothing special when it started. [...] since at that time many eager programmers were waiting for a free OS which at that time only GNU/Linux was available, they started to coding this GNU/Linux.

What about BSD and GNU/Herd? At that time, the former was under trial and the latter was far from completion, but they were still available.

As for the rest, I believe you have an over-optimistic point of view of microkernels... In reality, the reliability of a microkernel-based OS will depend on the maturity of its services. Your kernel might be "100% perfect", but it doesn't mean the rest is. Your OS might survive to a fs driver crash, but the safety of your data could still be in jeopardy.

They have nice advantages, but they are not the best thing since sliced bread. Monolithic and hybrid kernels are not that bad, after all.

Reply Parent Score: 1