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 122798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Communism
by dylansmrjones on Tue 9th May 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "Communism"
Member since:

I wouldn't call communism a good idea on paper.

Compare microkernels with anarchy instead. That's closer. Both great ideas, but if they are to be implemented cleanly they won't work. Compromises are necessary for both ideas.

Most kernels today, including linux, are hybrid kernels. And for a good reason.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Communism
by sappyvcv on Wed 10th May 2006 16:19 in reply to "RE: Communism"
sappyvcv Member since:

Hey, I agree with you! ;)

I do think all modern operating systems should indeed be using a hybrid kernel. Certain aspects are suited to be monolithic and certain modularized. To think everything can be lumped under one methodology is myopic.

Reply Parent Score: 1