3 ms·

"Pedantic"? If you just consider disallowing 3rd party modules to be a "microkernel" all while the kernel itself still loads most if not all (approved) drivers

"Pedantic"? If you just consider disallowing 3rd party modules to be a "microkernel" all while the kernel itself still loads most if not all (approved) drivers such as PCI bus, storage devices or filesystems in the same address space, then _all_ current major operating systems are "microkernels".

pjmlp 5y ago
From all pratical purposes for a third party driver writer persona, the only path forward are user space drivers. What you call a kernel like that?
- Nursie 5y ago
  Tivoised?
- Bjartr 5y ago
  Non-extensible? Locked? "A kernel that only allows user-space third party drivers"? That this style doesn't have a nifty name isn't a good reason to weaken the established definition of microkernel just so it does.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    It is kind of hard to implement a mikrokernel without any kind of drivers on the kernel. So, then it becomes a balancing act how many are allowed the priviledge to be part of the main act.
    - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
      > It is kind of hard to implement a mikrokernel without any kind of drivers on the kernel. Well, that is kinda the point of a microkernel (or at least one of the points). Sure, you're not going to have a kernel whatsoever without say an CPU/MMU driver in the same address space. Maybe a driver for the timer. But when you have graphics, sound, storage, USB controllers, filesystems, networking and most of a BSD kernel (providing all the syscalls) in the same address space, now that is not a microkernel by any definition of the word. XNU is called an "hybrid" kernel in part because in the original design the BSD parts implementing most of the actual system could have been spun off as a separate process (similar to Windows NT's original design), which would have been an actual microkernel, but in practice they were just stuck together in the same process, making it a monolithic kernel in all but name (just like in Windows). > So, then it becomes a balancing act how many are allowed the priviledge to be part of the main act. Yes.
ksec 5y ago
I was under the impression Apple intend to move those ( including their own ) outside as well with NetworkKit and DriverKit? Which is what pjmlp implies, once they are out, isn't it microkernel?
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  But they do not plan to move their own out, which is the point. That would require significant rearchitecture.

pjmlp 5y ago

From all pratical purposes for a third party driver writer persona, the only path forward are user space drivers. What you call a kernel like that?

Nursie 5y ago
Tivoised?
Bjartr 5y ago
Non-extensible? Locked? "A kernel that only allows user-space third party drivers"? That this style doesn't have a nifty name isn't a good reason to weaken the established definition of microkernel just so it does.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  It is kind of hard to implement a mikrokernel without any kind of drivers on the kernel. So, then it becomes a balancing act how many are allowed the priviledge to be part of the main act.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    > It is kind of hard to implement a mikrokernel without any kind of drivers on the kernel. Well, that is kinda the point of a microkernel (or at least one of the points). Sure, you're not going to have a kernel whatsoever without say an CPU/MMU driver in the same address space. Maybe a driver for the timer. But when you have graphics, sound, storage, USB controllers, filesystems, networking and most of a BSD kernel (providing all the syscalls) in the same address space, now that is not a microkernel by any definition of the word. XNU is called an "hybrid" kernel in part because in the original design the BSD parts implementing most of the actual system could have been spun off as a separate process (similar to Windows NT's original design), which would have been an actual microkernel, but in practice they were just stuck together in the same process, making it a monolithic kernel in all but name (just like in Windows). > So, then it becomes a balancing act how many are allowed the priviledge to be part of the main act. Yes.

ksec 5y ago

I was under the impression Apple intend to move those ( including their own ) outside as well with NetworkKit and DriverKit? Which is what pjmlp implies, once they are out, isn't it microkernel?

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
But they do not plan to move their own out, which is the point. That would require significant rearchitecture.