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 123151
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

> This is the often repeated argument from people who are used to think in terms of the only software model they know, the algorithmic model: multiple tools for different jobs.

I'm used to think in terms of whatever abstraction fits the job; i.e. with signals when I am developing reactive systems, with functions and trees when I am writing Lisp code and so on.

Electrical engineers, too, do use a lot of intellectual tools to do their job. They don't use an all-encompassing, unique tool to solve any EE problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2