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.
Thread beginning with comment 122795
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ding ding ding
by JMcCarthy on Tue 9th May 2006 21:46 UTC
Member since:

"Anybody who has ever done distributed programming should
know by now that when one node goes down, often the rest
comes down too. It's not always true (but neither is it
always true that a crash in a kernel driver would bring
the whole system down for a monolithic kernel), but it's
true enough if there is any kind of mutual dependencies,
and coherency issues."

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ding ding ding
by Cloudy on Wed 10th May 2006 05:06 in reply to "Ding ding ding "
Cloudy Member since:

There are two kinds of distributed programming, cooperative and competitive. When a cooperative worker goes down, typically, the whole project goes down. When a worker in a competitive program goes down, a competitor picks up the load. and seti@home are examples of robust distributed computing. So's bittorrent, although of a different model.

Reply Parent Score: 1