Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mcintyre1994 4560 days ago
The impression I get (university class on OSes) is that the microkernel/modular approach is more about making it simpler to port than making a specific instance simple? Similarly it'd be less complicated to extend since that's just a case of adding a new loadable module. In terms of a learning OS I'm not sure exactly which should be prioritised - extendability/portability or a simple structure? If this is a topic with a lot of depth I'm obviously not getting I'd definitely be interested in a discussion - my exam is soon :)
1 comments

Have you read the debate between Andy Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds from about 1992? It's a discussion of the tradeoffs between microkernels (Tanenbaum) and monolithic kernels (Torvalds). You can find it here:

http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html

The chapter by Torvalds in the same book is also worth reading:

http://oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/linus.html

The claim that microkernels improve portability makes no sense to me, since Linux itself is very portable, as are the BSDs (especially NetBSD and OpenBSD).

This is flame between two man with HUGE egos, not a debate.