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 123308
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Deviation from "No One-True Way" Rule
by middleware on Thu 11th May 2006 00:44 UTC
middleware
Member since:
2006-05-11

In some sense, the micro-kernel is a deviation from the Unix's distrust of "One true way." For a monolithic kernel like Linux, nothing stop you just write a simple stub in kernel space while leave as much part of you driver to user space as possible. In fact there has already been something like user-space file system. If micro-kernel had really superior advantage, majority driver would have adopted that approach. Nothing stop you from doing that. And in a monolithic kernel you will reach the best balance as you wish.

Reply Score: 1