Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2006 21:25 UTC, submitted by luzr
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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-15
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.