Re: microkernels (I'm not a huge fan of systemd)
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:32:29 -0400
Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
> On 07/15/2014 10:37 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:36:54 +0000
> > Bonno Bloksma <b.bloksma@tio.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> Steve Litt wrote at 2014-07-11 11:21 -0500:
> >>>> A bizarre thought just popped into my head, in the form of a
> >>>> little voice. The little voice told me that if they guys who
> >>>> controlled the decision to go to systemd had been the decision
> >>>> makers in 1990, Linux would have a microkernel today.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding history and microkernels, this document about the
> >>> reliability features of Minix is very interesting:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.minix3.org/docs/jorrit-herder/osr-jul06.pdf
> >>
> >> Hmm, very nice to read. It proves that an inherent stable OS using
> >> a microkernel design is possible. And they even build and tested
> >> it in the wild.
> >>
> >> Bonno Bloksma
> >
> > Yes, that article was surprisingly logical and laid out the case
> > for a microkernel extremely well. I hereby take back my original
> > statement. The microkernel is 5K lines of code. I have a feeling
> > that systemd has a few more lines of code than that.
>
>
> It would be interesting to read Linus's comments on
> MicroKernels...and why Linux is the way it is. Has he ever commented ?
As I remember, and I could be wrong, he said he went monolithic because
that's what he could do quickly, by himself. The long road to hurd kind
of proved that microkernel is difficult to implement.
One of my favorite sayings is "The perfect is the enemy of the good". I
think that's why he went monolithic. A lot of things never get done at
all because people insist on doing it the very best way, and never get
out of the planning stage.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
Reply to: