3 ms·
> The debate is sort of obsolete really. Says who? > * Linux has microkernel-like functionalities like FUSE. You can do filesystems in userspace now. That h
by goodpoint 3y ago
> The debate is sort of obsolete really.
Says who?
> * Linux has microkernel-like functionalities like FUSE. You can do filesystems in userspace now.
That has very little to do with real microkernels.
> * The modern approach to High Availability is to have redundant hardware. A single machine being fault tolerant isn't that important anymore.
Not at all. The "modern" approach you are describing is many decades old and single systems are still extremely common.
- dale_glass 3y ago> Says who? I'm writing my comment, so me, based on observations over time. > That has very little to do with real microkernels. It doesn't matter if it's "real" or not. My point was that any selling point a microkernel can come up with can be grafted into a monolithic one. So one of the usual selling points of a microkernel is that you can run a filesystem in userspace and eg, can allow an user to mount a network drive. Well, no need to switch kernels just for that since they added FUSE to Linux. As an user I don't care if it's pure, I care that the job gets done. > Not at all. The "modern" approach you are describing is many decades old and single systems are still extremely common. Modern compared to the very old idea of the microkernel, I mean. I can see that the idea had a lot of appeal back in the era of rare, room sized computers. Keeping a single machine going is far less important in modern times, where most serious uses try their best to treat any single machine as disposable.
- JdeBP 3y agoYour grasp of history is terrible. The era of rare room-sized computers pre-dates (say) Minix by decades. Basing an argument upon that premise is highly fallacious.