To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
For instant fun...
http://wiki.osdev.org/Monolithic_Kernel
http://wiki.osdev.org/Hybrid_Kernel
Notice that Linux is in both categories, but that NT and XNU somehow escape the monolithic kernel definition.
Pictures pretty well how much blurred the lines are.
Myself, I tend to base myself on the following categorization :
Monolithic (non-modular) : Old designs. The kernel includes lots of features in an inflexible way.
Modular : Most modern desktop kernels. Still lots of stuff in the kernel space, which gives some credit to people who also classify them as monolithic, but code modules are sufficiently independent from each other that you can selectively add and remove them at run time.
Microkernels : There is an explicit intent to put every functionality which does not need full system access (as an example, the VFS) outside of the kernel.
Picokernels, nanokernels : Microkernels which want to show off.
Hybrid kernels : Modular kernels which want to show off.
Edited 2011-06-21 13:44 UTC




Member since:
2010-03-08
Yup. I have a hard time distinguishing "modular kernel" and "hybrid kernel", but if both means the same, on which we seem to agree, then I have to say that Linux definitely qualifies as a modular kernel.
Edited 2011-06-21 13:19 UTC