4 ms·

This is true, but like other extinction level events it might actually open up the space for some new ideas. Someone on my twitter put it this way: microkernel

This is true, but like other extinction level events it might actually open up the space for some new ideas. Someone on my twitter put it this way: microkernels could see a resurgence if the cost of a context switch into kernel is just as high as the cost of context switching between 2 processes.

nly 9y ago
Microkernels you say? Yay, more complexity! In all seriousness, the Nintendo Switch users a microkernel and just got completely p3wned. It's extremely fanciful that we know how to build robust modular microkernels when we can't even get the simple stuff right.
- willtim 9y ago
  I think you have it backwards. Monolithic kernels are by their very nature more complex to reason about due to all the communication backchannels made possible when everything sits in one process.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
    This discussion seems vaguely familiar for some reason...[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Microkernels mean more insulation and standardization. Yes, it's a form of complexity; just not what tend to relate to problems.
  - derekp7 9y ago
    The complexity comes from when those standards don't let you do something, and you have to do weird things to break through them. Such as leaky abstractions.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      Microkernels IPC ought to be enough for anybody. Seriously, completely generic IPC is not something impossible. You may have some to create some large drivers, but the insulation is still there, even for those.
- anonacct37 9y ago
  It's definitely a tradeoff. Distributed systems are hard. Isolation is good. One of the best tools we have for isolation is processes and MMUs. I'm not saying we should all switch, it's just that it's possible, given my understanding of how we're dealing with the intel bug, that one of the arguments against microkernels just went way. So they might make sense in places they previously didn't.
lloeki 9y ago
LISP machines!

nly 9y ago

Microkernels you say? Yay, more complexity! In all seriousness, the Nintendo Switch users a microkernel and just got completely p3wned. It's extremely fanciful that we know how to build robust modular microkernels when we can't even get the simple stuff right.

willtim 9y ago
I think you have it backwards. Monolithic kernels are by their very nature more complex to reason about due to all the communication backchannels made possible when everything sits in one process.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
  This discussion seems vaguely familiar for some reason...[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...
marcosdumay 9y ago
Microkernels mean more insulation and standardization. Yes, it's a form of complexity; just not what tend to relate to problems.
- derekp7 9y ago
  The complexity comes from when those standards don't let you do something, and you have to do weird things to break through them. Such as leaky abstractions.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Microkernels IPC ought to be enough for anybody. Seriously, completely generic IPC is not something impossible. You may have some to create some large drivers, but the insulation is still there, even for those.
anonacct37 9y ago
It's definitely a tradeoff. Distributed systems are hard. Isolation is good. One of the best tools we have for isolation is processes and MMUs. I'm not saying we should all switch, it's just that it's possible, given my understanding of how we're dealing with the intel bug, that one of the arguments against microkernels just went way. So they might make sense in places they previously didn't.

lloeki 9y ago

LISP machines!