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 123436
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Boring again plus hypocrite
by mgiammarco on Thu 11th May 2006 12:54 UTC
Member since:

I repeat again: there are no microkernels based oses because there is no market space for another os. The "missing driver" problem. Let's try again when virtualization has gain more popularity.

Plus I add hypocrisy: people hates microkernels for 3% of performance loss but they happily use all bloated software without complain...

I work as a programmer in the financial software and I see each days it is better having lots of modules completely indipendent that communicates to well defined interfaces. At least if you want to be sure that your bank account is right each morning.

Reply Score: 1