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 122996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: My Take
by Ookaze on Wed 10th May 2006 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE: My Take"
Ookaze
Member since:
2005-11-14

No. Using the right algorithm for a problem might be more difficult to program, but if the run time is a fraction of the simple solution, it _might_ be a better solution

The problem is that you forgot a very important parameter : the time it takes to implement the algorithm.
And microkernels lose big time here : longer to implement, longer to make them fast.
I'm no expert, I just look at the hard facts.

Linus uses performance as an argument, but sometimes good performance requires complex solutions

Linux already has very good performance.

The choice of programming language doesn't really have anything to do with design

That's not true at all. There are procedural, functional, OO programming languages. Each one can greatly change the design of your app.

What baffles me here, is that there's no problem. There are just people arguing about which is best.
Unfortunately, one camp has a very good implementation, widely used in all situations you can use a kernel.
The other camp has nearly nothing : only some niche situations. So the other camp can't compare to Linux, just present theorical findings.
So, even if it's just arguments, I have a hard time being on the side of microkernel proponents, because monolithic kernel people have made sth.
In the other camp, I see people badmouthing people making Linux, but I've yet to see all these brilliant people working on the Hurd.
Go help these people to validate your theories, instead of losing your time arguing with Linus, who has nothing to prove anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 2