[truncate]

If I'm not mistaken, another argument for microkernel was the isolation of each modules. For example, if I'm using some driver X and it crashes, rest of my system will continue to work fine. That's not the case with monolithic kernel. I think this safety is pretty cool to have.

Although, Linux still probably does the best job of being stable compared to rest of OS I use (Windows, macOS). I can't recall the last time I got into kernel panic or crashed (despite worse drivers in some cases).

[detaro]

I've been positively suprised by Windows in the presence of some issues with bad graphics drivers. On Windows, the screen flickers, the "guilty" app dies and a popup appears in the corner "sorry, the graphics subsystem had to be restarted". Whereas GPU driver issues on Linux typically leave you at the text console at best. (a driver going totally haywire can of course bring down both entirely)

[efaref]

This is mostly because of a long history of crummy graphics drivers on Windows led to countless bluescreens. In the past, if your Windows machine bluescreened, it was a safe bet that the graphics driver was the cause.

Microsoft had enough telemetry telling them this that they spent a large effort restructuring the graphics driver subsystem so that it could crash and burn and be restarted without affecting the rest of the system.

Although Linux already has the isolation, it doesn't have the clean recovery. Since the year of the Linux desktop hasn't arrived yet, Linux is yet to make this journey.