summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/microkernel/discussion.mdwn
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'microkernel/discussion.mdwn')
-rw-r--r--microkernel/discussion.mdwn40
1 files changed, 39 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/microkernel/discussion.mdwn b/microkernel/discussion.mdwn
index a5a73e1..f5626f6 100644
--- a/microkernel/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/microkernel/discussion.mdwn
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
-IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-26:
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-26
< antrik> Tekk_`: regarding microkernels: the basic idea, and really the
*only* fundamental difference, is that they isolate things in separate
@@ -22,3 +22,41 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-26:
these are secondary effects: such choices can also be implemented in a
monolithic architecture -- and not necessarily harder. just less obvious
in some cases...
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-28
+
+ <Spyro> ok question
+ <Spyro> what is the big advantage of microkernels over monolithic kernels
+ as you guys see it?
+ <Spyro> is it entirely for the benefit of developers or are there actaully
+ practical advantages?
+ <kilobug> Spyro: there are many advantages, at least in theory, in terms of
+ modularity, flexibility, stability, scalability, security, ... which are
+ for everyone
+ <braunr> Spyro: of course some advantages are practical
+ <braunr> for me, the main advantage is system extensibility
+ <braunr> you can replace system services at runtime
+ <braunr> and on the hurd, you can do it as an unprivileged user
+ <braunr> (the direct side effect is far increased security)
+ <braunr> kilobug: i don't see the scalability advantages though
+ <kilobug> braunr: I would say it goes in par with the modularity, like, you
+ can have a full-weight IPv4/IPv6 stack for desktop, but a minimal stack
+ for embeded
+ <braunr> i see
+ <braunr> for me, it's in par with extensibility :)
+ <braunr> i see modularity only as an implementation of extensibility
+ <braunr> or a special case of it
+ <braunr> Spyro: basically, it's supposed to bring the same advantages as
+ fuse, but even more so (because it's not limited to file systems), and
+ better (because it's normally well integrated with the core of the
+ system)
+ <teythoon> also, fuse is kind of bolted on and Linux composes really badly
+ <teythoon> e.g. it is not possible to nfs export a fuse mounted filesystem
+ on Linux
+ <braunr> bolted ?
+ <teythoon> isn't that the term? as in being attached using screws?
+ <braunr> i'm not familiar with it :p
+ <azeem> "a posteriori design"
+ <teythoon> yes
+ <braunr> ok