2014/09/29 23:21 "green" <greenfreedom10@gmail.com>:
>
> Steve Litt wrote at 2014-09-28 22:04 -0500:
> > On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:10:52 -0500 green <greenfreedom10@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Microkernels, as I understand, aim to support a highly modular system
> > > *design* but are themselves minimal (Minix 3 has about 4000 lines of
> > > executable kernel code). This "core code" can be more easily audited
> > > and maintained. Servers, eg. device drivers, are supervised and can
> > > not bring down the system (in the context of the kernel). (See
> > > <http://www.minix3.org/other/reliability.html>.)
> > >
> > > So yes, perhaps one major reason some people dislike systemd (too much
> > > "core code") is the same reason some people like the microkernel
> > > design.
> >
> > I don't think anyone had a problem with the concepts around
> > microkernel. The problem is that nobody in the Free Software community
> > could write a decent microkernel.
>
> NetBSD's "anykernel" and DragonFlyBSD's "hybrid" kernel designs could
> be considered at least to incorporate parts of the microkernel design.
L4, among others.
It's worth looking at wikipedia's article on microkernels for starters, if you're interested in the subject.
Joel Rees
Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.