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 123255
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Think different
by Cloudy on Wed 10th May 2006 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Think different"
Member since:

Then are you talking about an OS written in a'memory safe' language like Java? Are you talking about the Singularity project by Microsoft using C# and is variants?

Yes, I am talking about operating systems not based on consepts (and misconseptions) discovered 40-50 years ago.

Burroughs wrote 'memory safe' operating systems in type safe languages forty years ago. They even designed processor architectures to support them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Think different
by renox on Thu 11th May 2006 07:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Think different"
renox Member since:

And the fact that nobody remembers it show quite clearly that writing in a type safe language is not necessarily such a big advantage over competitors.

For any new OS, compatibility with the installed base is necessary, except for niche products of course.

Reply Parent Score: 1