[taeric]

I think this response actually came later. Apologies for that to the other poster.

This is pretty much my point. This "embedded systems use microkernels" is easy to paint in such a way that it supports either argument. Comes down almost to the scottsman falacy.

More to the point, if I were to claim that my phone is really running a microkernel, I would be ignoring the majority of the software on my phone. I mean, yes it is true. But it is laughable in that the majority of the programming on the device is not in L4. To a large margin.

Consider, you are at this point merely claiming that a state machine in your device is running in a microkernel. And, to the non-microkernel that runs the majority of the phone, it is but a device. So, we have a non-microkernel running a microkernel as a standard device.

[vegggdor]

I'm sorry, i love talking semantics and that's what this discussion is, if you question the meaning of embedded. That word is not well defined, afaict, and i was just trying to add some perspective.

> I would be ignoring the majority of the software on my phone

I'd like to argue that the baseband processor is the biggest part of the phone, save for relaying and converting the microphone input. The rest is just a handheld computer. But that's the True Scottsman you made out. In fact, Android might be a good example, just one that doesn't support your point too well, because the Scottsman Fallacy is working both ways. When we are talking true OS with services and drivers et al, android is relevant, ofc. Still, it might be chosen because of any other reason as well. The reference to Android is akin to an argument of authority.

You can run Linux on L4 as a hypervisor, by the way. I have no clue how that works, but maybe we have a microkernel running the Linux-kernel as a service. :)

[taeric]

Agreed on this being a semantic discussion.

I can see the compelling nature of the baseband processor being the largest part of a phone. If only because of the name of the device. The reality, I assert, is that the phone is now just another component inside a pocket computer I happen to carry around. Ironically, it is mainly used from an app called "Phone" on said device.

And, my entire point for this thread is that Android as an example can be used to cut both ways. That was what I meant by saying it could support either argument. (I cede that my opening comment did not make this clear. It was what I meant by saying "this point is easy to mislead.")

I do not see how it is an appeal to authority, though. It is meant to be an appeal to evidence. Just as the claim that "embedded systems use microkernels" is.

[pjmlp]

Symbian and QNX, then you have a micro-kernel for the whole software stack.

[taeric]

Which feeds right back to my point. How did that work out? :)

[pjmlp]

The technical capabilities are not to blame for the political warfare of management.

[taeric]

Eventually, this ceases to read as a reason, and falls more into just an excuse. Told by what seems to be more and more of a bitter crowd. :(

[Demiurge]

So, you don't find it bitterly ironic that Symbian was replaced by a hybrid kernel based OS (NT) instead of a monolithic one?

[tacticus]

Most of the symbian devices are being replaced by android phones not windows phones.

The high end market is android and ios. the middle of the market is android and small amounts of other the low end of the market is android for the most part now as well.