From 4b997604921357720ac1d9304e27f83be8af6512 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 00:23:52 +0100
Subject: open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation: IRC, #hurd,
 2010-12-28.

---
 .../benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn  | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)

(limited to 'open_issues')

diff --git a/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn b/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn
index 34e49e86..af96ce62 100644
--- a/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn
+++ b/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn
@@ -85,3 +85,48 @@ IRC, #hurd, August / September 2010
     <marcusb> ArneBab: as a side note, although people keep complaining, the
       linux kernel seems to be growing steadily, so getting stuff into the
       kernel doesn't seem too hard.  8-O
+
+---
+
+IRC, #hurd, 2010-12-28
+
+    <tim> but is monolithic so bad?
+    <sartakov> yep 
+    <braunr> no it's not
+    <braunr> proof: it works very well for most people
+    [...]
+    <braunr> the real problem is extensibility and interfaces
+    <tim> :/ whats the huge advantage of micro-k
+    <braunr> extensibility
+    <tim> over?
+    <braunr> you can add a whole lot of new services for new purposes with new
+      interfaces without changing the kernel
+    <tim> oright
+    <braunr> it basically boils down to the original Unix idea: everything does
+      one thing well
+    [...]
+    <kilobug> well, I would say extensibility and fault-tolerance are the two
+      key advantages
+    <braunr> taht's a side effect
+    <braunr> there are fault taulerant monolithic kernels
+    [...]
+    <braunr> tolerant*
+    <braunr> and the hurd is for now a non fault-tolerant microkernel based OS
+      :/
+    [...]
+    <kilobug> braunr: not really; you can't ensure fault tolerance for code
+      running in kernel space, code running in kernel space can do everything,
+      including reboot, crash, ...
+    [...]
+    <braunr> kilobug: right, a monolithick kernel is less folt-tolerant than a
+      well designed/implemented microkernel based os
+    <kilobug> braunr: well, the Hurd is buggy nowadays, but things like an
+      ext2fs translator doing a segfault and being restarted is a
+      fault-tolerance that would be almost impossible to have in Linux
+    <kilobug> braunr: sure, you can have fault-tolerance with FUSE, but FUSE is
+      applying micro-kernel paradigm to Linux
+    [...]
+    <braunr> the reason i don't care that much about fault tolerance is that
+      Linux obviously shows a monolithic kernel can run almost flawlessly if
+      well written
+    <braunr> but extensibility is really another matter
-- 
cgit v1.2.3