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 122939
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: a word from a programmer
by Cloudy on Wed 10th May 2006 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE: a word from a programmer"
Member since:

Ehm, Rashid was the chief developer of Mach microkernel.

He was the faculty member under whom much of the Mach work was done as graduate research.

Now is the chief developer of Windows kernel (that is an hybrid monolithic kernel with elements of microkernel).

No. He's senior vice president of research at microsoft. Rick's never been directly involved in Windows development.

The vice of Rashid was Tevanian. Avie was the chief developer of Next kernel, XNU and Apple Darwin (an hybrid microkernel with elements monolithic kernel).

You should read Wilkes and Sears comments on Avia's work on Mach memory management. You would find it interesting.

In fact, the 97% of the world installed base are partialy microkernel...

No. Just because you draw a box around your vm and scheduler and label that box "microkernel" does not mean that you have a microkernel implementation.

Press claims to the contrary, Windows/NT is not a microkernel based OS. Neither is Linux. Mach was, and I suppose Darwin is. (I'm too lazy to look at the Darwin source code.) That's pretty much it in desktop OS land.

Reply Parent Score: 2