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 122953
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by John Nilsson on Wed 10th May 2006 06:41 UTC
John Nilsson
Member since:

I think one of the most important design consideration when dealing with a free os kernel, such as Linux, is flexibillity.

The system must be able to evolve freely in unpredictable directions.

A microkernel-based architecture may accomplish this to some extent. Regardles of what theoretical model is the best, we know one thing: As more and more people want to force the Linux kernel to serve their purposes, the overall architechture will evolve into something to support this flexibillity. Wheter this will be a microkernel design, or not, is of academic interest at best.

Edited 2006-05-10 06:42

Reply Score: 1