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 122854
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Communism
by archiesteel on Tue 9th May 2006 23:04 UTC
Member since:

I wouldn't call communism a good idea on paper. Compare microkernels with anarchy instead.

On paper, communism and anarchism (I suppose that's what you mean) are pretty much the same thing. I think you're thinking of socialism.

In any case, socialism, like capitalism, look good on paper, are historical processes (the former coming out of the latter). It's not a question of looking good on paper or not - they just happen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Communism
by twenex on Tue 9th May 2006 23:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Communism"
twenex Member since:

I doubt that socialism would have spontaneously "just happened" in Eastern Europe without the Soviet Union's involvement. Whether what you might term "organic socialism" is the natural successor to capitalism is at best as yet unproven.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Communism
by dylansmrjones on Wed 10th May 2006 00:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Communism"
dylansmrjones Member since:

I shouldn't reply on this because it'll lead to a discussion not proper in here.

In case you'd like such a discussion, please let me know and we'll take it somewhere else. It could be quite interesting.

Just remember that anarchy is the opposite pole to communism, and communism (as well as nazism and fascism) is hardcore socialism.

My email-adresse is in my profile ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Communism
by spectator on Wed 10th May 2006 05:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Communism"
spectator Member since:

I haven't found the e-mail address, so I'll just reply here.

There are few things that need to be said:
1 Anarchy isn't the opposite post to communism, in fact communist and anarchist societies would have almost everything in common.
2 Nazism is not hardcore socialism. It is plain statism in economy and hardcore nationalism.
3 Communism itself was quite popular among the societies of Eastern Europe after the WW2. The process in which these countries fell under control of soviet union is a bit more complicated than you'd suspect. The most significant example is that communism was the system chosen by Czech Republic without the soviet interference.

Enough of this, I wouldn't like to spoil the kernel flamefest by some insignificant historical rambling.

Edited 2006-05-10 05:46

Reply Parent Score: 1