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 122947
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Microkernels are killing OSNEWS
by mike hess on Wed 10th May 2006 06:04 UTC
mike hess
Member since:

This ongoing microkernel "debate" is really exposing many people for fools.

Creating this "controversy" out of thin air is only dragging down the site.

Linus' argument against Microkernels (as written in 'Just For Fun') is that the smaller you make every module, the more code you have to write connecting those modules.

So the intended simplicity of design is actually a false simlicity because you have simple modules, but very sophisticated communication between modules.

The point is mute anyway considering how many kernel modules are being replaced by user-mode daemons. Clearly, there's room for both concepts even in a single project.

Reply Score: 2