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 122968
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The Hidden Nature of Software
by axilmar on Wed 10th May 2006 09:44 UTC in reply to "The Hidden Nature of Software"
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Although most of the users would reply with a "WTF" to your post, your post is quite correct. Unfortunately it would take many years for people to realize that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Mapou Member since:
2006-05-09

Although most of the users would reply with a "WTF" to your post, your post is quite correct. Unfortunately it would take many years for people to realize that.

Thanks for the support. I've been promoting signal-based computing for over 10 years and it's only recently that I've begun to make a dent in the existing paradigm. It's amazing what years of brainwashing in schools can do to us humans. It makes us blind. But this a fight that we must all win because the software reliability crisis is very real and extremely dangerous.

Reply Parent Score: 1

rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

Thanks for the support. I've been promoting signal-based computing for over 10 years and it's only recently that I've begun to make a dent in the existing paradigm.

Is there currently *any* actual open source software demonstrating the efficacity of these concepts that I can download and toy with?

While I am not necessarily buying into your "paradigm battle", I find the concepts interesting. My interest isn't so much in the microkernel/monolithic kernel debate, but in distributed programming in general. My current project is largely signal-based, with an IPC mechanism handling communication between separate processes. Is your approach intended only for low-level programming, such as kernels, or would it apply to any sort of software development?

If the end result of your 10+ years of effort is just a series of theoretical papers and conceptual drawings, with no actual working software, I have to remain skeptical. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, would it be possible to implement a working model of your ideas given a set of modules and an IPC mechanism in some scripting language, such as Python, Ruby, or even PHP? What page of your website would be the best starting point for this?

Honestly, this whole discussion of signal-based computing seems quite reminiscent of the dicussions in Functional programming (although FP does not explicitly use signals, the effect seems similar, as are the claims to "software correctness"). The main difference being that the functional programming guys actually have tons of working software out there. What are the parallels and differences between your concepts and those of the functional programming (eg. the Lisp machine)?

Reply Parent Score: 2

renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Bah advocating/promoting doesn't worth much.
Make a big opensource software with real world usage such as a clone of kword or of firefox, then you'll get lots of followers, if it's really flawless..

In the meantime, my favourite quote is still 'there is no silver bullet'.

Reply Parent Score: 1