5 ms·

> Linux runs on Xen in AWS. Yea your right about that. But my point still stands almost all of AWS is being used to host monolithic kernels because the monolit

> Linux runs on Xen in AWS. Yea your right about that. But my point still stands almost all of AWS is being used to host monolithic kernels because the monolithic kernels(Linux, FreeBSD) have the features people wan't for running their business/organization.

kbenson 10y ago
> But my point still stands almost all of AWS is being used to host monolithic kernels because the monolithic kernels(Linux, FreeBSD) have the features people wan't The implication there is that they have the features because they are monolithic kernels, which is presuming the very thing being discussed. The only thing you can say without a lot more proof is that people use Linux of FreeBSD because they have features people want. Whether being monolithic is a causation or correlation with those features is not established (in this discussion) yet.
- 2trill2spill 10y ago
  > The implication there is that they have the features because they are monolithic kernels, which is presuming the very thing being discussed. The only thing you can say without a lot more proof is that people use Linux of FreeBSD because they have features people want. Whether being monolithic is a causation or correlation with those features is not established (in this discussion) yet. I'm not saying FreeBSD and Linux have those features because they are monolithic, i'm saying people use monolithic kernels because they are more feature complete at this point in time. More specifically if I want to run a big web app in production there are no suitable microkernels or exokernels to do so now.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > More specifically if I want to run a big web app in production there are no suitable microkernels or exokernels to do so now. Windows NT is a hybrid kernel[1], so there's somewhat conflicting evidence. Really, I think I could make an argument that the reason a microkernel hasn't gained popularity is because there's far too much focus on performance to the detriment of security and stability in much of the last few decades program development, much less OS development. People aren't good at correctly estimating risk and reward for future events that are more than a few years out, and worse when the risk is abstract in nature. Would everything be running slower if we used microkernels for the majority of systems? Probably (but who knows by how much? If there was a lot more work focused on that problem, we might have ways to alleviate much of it by now). Would our systems be more secure and less prone to software errors? I think so. Do I think it's possible we as a culture (species?) could choose stability and security over performance? Not without enforcement negative consequences when developers supply buggy and/or exploitable code, and consequences for those companies that choose to run that code even if they are carefully advised on the possible consequences. So, not likely, and that's a huge discussion in itself. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel

kbenson 10y ago

> But my point still stands almost all of AWS is being used to host monolithic kernels because the monolithic kernels(Linux, FreeBSD) have the features people wan't The implication there is that they have the features because they are monolithic kernels, which is presuming the very thing being discussed. The only thing you can say without a lot more proof is that people use Linux of FreeBSD because they have features people want. Whether being monolithic is a causation or correlation with those features is not established (in this discussion) yet.

2trill2spill 10y ago
> The implication there is that they have the features because they are monolithic kernels, which is presuming the very thing being discussed. The only thing you can say without a lot more proof is that people use Linux of FreeBSD because they have features people want. Whether being monolithic is a causation or correlation with those features is not established (in this discussion) yet. I'm not saying FreeBSD and Linux have those features because they are monolithic, i'm saying people use monolithic kernels because they are more feature complete at this point in time. More specifically if I want to run a big web app in production there are no suitable microkernels or exokernels to do so now.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > More specifically if I want to run a big web app in production there are no suitable microkernels or exokernels to do so now. Windows NT is a hybrid kernel[1], so there's somewhat conflicting evidence. Really, I think I could make an argument that the reason a microkernel hasn't gained popularity is because there's far too much focus on performance to the detriment of security and stability in much of the last few decades program development, much less OS development. People aren't good at correctly estimating risk and reward for future events that are more than a few years out, and worse when the risk is abstract in nature. Would everything be running slower if we used microkernels for the majority of systems? Probably (but who knows by how much? If there was a lot more work focused on that problem, we might have ways to alleviate much of it by now). Would our systems be more secure and less prone to software errors? I think so. Do I think it's possible we as a culture (species?) could choose stability and security over performance? Not without enforcement negative consequences when developers supply buggy and/or exploitable code, and consequences for those companies that choose to run that code even if they are carefully advised on the possible consequences. So, not likely, and that's a huge discussion in itself. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel