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 123011
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: My Take
by Sphinx on Wed 10th May 2006 13:21 UTC in reply to "My Take"
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

just because it is difficult to program, does not make it the worse design.

Or at least get a clue as to what makes one design better than another.

Reply Parent Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

There exists an easy way to have modules within the same address space that can not destroy each other. The Motorola 68020 had a CALLM instruction for that purpose. It is amazing that CPU manufacturers have not used it in modern CPUs.

The solution is very simple: an inter-module call saves the current module id on the stack and loads a new module id from the destination. If the new module id is invalid or inaccessible, an exception occurs. Otherwise, execution continues with the new module as the current module. Local module calls can only operate within the memory space defined by the current module descriptor.

Reply Parent Score: 1