Linux history microkernel, monolithic 2279

On Saturday 05 August 2006 19:18, Vladimirr Saigon stood up and spoke the following words to the mbuttes incomp.os.linux.misc...:

In short: monolithic kernels are faster and less prone to errors caused by the increased complexity or kernelspace-userspace signalling. Microkernels require a lot more semaphores to help userspace and kernelspace communicate, and this typically impedes performance.

Aside from that, the reference provided by the poster known asyttrxwill give you a more in-depth view on the debate between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tannenbaum - the creator of Minix.

Minix is indeed microkernel-based - there are some who would dispute that - while Linux is a monolithic kernel.

Perhaps also noteworthy is the fact that native GNU as intended by Richard Stallman also makes use of a microkernel design, but that this design was so complex that it was the last component of the operating system to get developed. At present, the Hurd is still not considered production-ready.

As Richard Stallman's intentions were not only technical but also - and perhaps foremost - politically, he doesn't really mind that the Hurd is catching up late. After all, his political goal - i.e. the availability of an entirely Free operating system (in the sense of Freedom) - has been accomplished by coupling the Linux kernel to the GNU operating system userspace.

It's an obviously very efficient and very stable combo, and one should never change a winning team. ;-)

-- With kind regards,

*Aragorn* (Registered GNU-Linux user #223157)