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 122889
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Communism
by archiesteel on Wed 10th May 2006 00:47 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

You're right, this isn't the proper place to discuss this. However...

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

Actually, that is incorrect. Anarchism (not anarchy) is a social system, and is the opposite of fascism. Nazism is a form of fascism based on a semi-esoteric view of history. Socialism is an economic system, and communism is an utopia.

Amalgamating Socialism to Nazism and Fascism is a famous strawman argument used by the right. It ignores the fact that Nazis executed socialists before they did the same to the jews, and that private enterprise flourishes in fascist states.

Nazism and Fascism have nothing to do with socialism, and are in fact greatly opposed to this economic model.

I suggest you visit this website for a more nuanced view of the political spectrum:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Now, since this off-topic, dylan, what do you say we agree to disagree? :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Communism
by dylansmrjones on Wed 10th May 2006 01:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Communism"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Of course we agree to disagree.

I'd like to add a few things, but as I already stated, this isn't the right forum. I will restrain myself, but you make it hard. Very hard indeed.

[EDIT:] The Political Compass isn't that good. I've seen better two dimensional political definitions. Personally I prefer three dimensions to define the political space.

Edited 2006-05-10 01:24

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Communism
by bryanv on Wed 10th May 2006 17:19 in reply to "RE[5]: Communism"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

you make it hard. Very hard indeed.

That's what I told my girlfriend last night.

Reply Parent Score: 2