Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th May 2006 19:19 UTC, submitted by Christopher Nelson
The microkernel vs. monolithic debate, whether you boys and girls like it or not, rages on. After Tanenbaum's article and an email from Torvalds, another kernel developer steps up, this time in favour of the muK. A developer of the muK-based Coyotos writes: "Ultimately, there are two compelling reasons to consider microkernels in high-robustness or high-security environments: there are several examples of microkernel-based systems that have succeeded in these applications because of the system structuring that microkernel-based designs demand, [and] there are zero examples of high-robustness or high-security monolithic systems."
Thread beginning with comment 123631
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:
2006-01-01
Minix was originally used for educational purposes. It was quite successful in that area, and has been used across the globe to teach undergraduates how to write various parts of a kernel. If you mean contemporary Minix used for embedded purposes, then you really can answer this question for yourself easily-enough: why develop Minix when other people will develop Linux for you, or you can license third-party operating systems that have various certifications necessary for your task?
I could probably comment further on other aspects, but I'd like to minimize my involvement in this subject.