5 ms·

Isn't this this mono vs micro kernel debate all over again?

ssrc 3y ago
I think it's monorepo vs multi-repo, and since Linux maintainers update the drivers (I believe) when internal APIs change, and the internal APIs are not stable, monorepo seems more practical.
- davidw 3y ago
  There's something clever to say about the author of Linux vs the author of Git, but it's not coming to mind right now...
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    Both exactly equally famous for sometimes being an asshole?
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Maybe I’m missing the joke, but in or out of kernel context is orthogonal to how the source code is stored.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    The author is the same (Linus), so it makes sense that he would design a source control system that supported the monorepo he created over the prior 15-ish years.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Sure, but git does support multiple repos quite easily, and has support for submodules. It's grown a lot since when Linus first designed it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    "how the source code is stored" is what leads to "wow, the linux kernel is really big". Nobody's measuring kernel size by the number of resident pages it takes up.
pessimizer 3y ago
Isn't that the subject of this entire thread?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
anon25783 3y ago
Things are perhaps a bit different now than when Torvalds and Tanenbaum debated the issue on comp.os.minix over thirty years ago.
- dpe82 3y ago
  What, specifically, is different?
  - anon25783 3y ago
    The machines are different. Multicore 64-bit chips are now standard for consumer PCs. RAM and persistent storage are faster and much more abundant. The architecture of the modern x86-64 is much more sophisticated than that of the 386 for which the earliest Linux was written. Vectorization, predictive branching, and asynchronous code are all front and center in the modern programmer's ecosystem. In short, hardware is more capable, and so perhaps now we can afford to take more opportunities to trade a little bit of overhead for abstractions that are more modular and robust.
    - RoseRose 3y ago
      > In short, hardware is more capable, and so perhaps now we can afford to take more opportunities to trade a little bit of overhead for abstractions that are more modular and robust. We could afford that before, it's just that Linus didn't see the value and put his foot down. Which is definitely a choice.
    - taeric 3y ago
      In a very real sense, the hardware has given a realization of microservice ideas, but at the hardware level. My WIFI card, the common and popular example, probably has more processing power than some of the early desktop computers back in the day. Certainly SSDs are getting much more complicated. They aren't general purpose, but I presume microkernel "services" would also not be general purpose?
      - lmm 3y ago

ssrc 3y ago

I think it's monorepo vs multi-repo, and since Linux maintainers update the drivers (I believe) when internal APIs change, and the internal APIs are not stable, monorepo seems more practical.

davidw 3y ago
There's something clever to say about the author of Linux vs the author of Git, but it's not coming to mind right now...
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Both exactly equally famous for sometimes being an asshole?
actionfromafar 3y ago
Maybe I’m missing the joke, but in or out of kernel context is orthogonal to how the source code is stored.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  The author is the same (Linus), so it makes sense that he would design a source control system that supported the monorepo he created over the prior 15-ish years.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Sure, but git does support multiple repos quite easily, and has support for submodules. It's grown a lot since when Linus first designed it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  "how the source code is stored" is what leads to "wow, the linux kernel is really big". Nobody's measuring kernel size by the number of resident pages it takes up.

pessimizer 3y ago

Isn't that the subject of this entire thread?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

anon25783 3y ago

Things are perhaps a bit different now than when Torvalds and Tanenbaum debated the issue on comp.os.minix over thirty years ago.

dpe82 3y ago
What, specifically, is different?
- anon25783 3y ago
  The machines are different. Multicore 64-bit chips are now standard for consumer PCs. RAM and persistent storage are faster and much more abundant. The architecture of the modern x86-64 is much more sophisticated than that of the 386 for which the earliest Linux was written. Vectorization, predictive branching, and asynchronous code are all front and center in the modern programmer's ecosystem. In short, hardware is more capable, and so perhaps now we can afford to take more opportunities to trade a little bit of overhead for abstractions that are more modular and robust.
  - RoseRose 3y ago
    > In short, hardware is more capable, and so perhaps now we can afford to take more opportunities to trade a little bit of overhead for abstractions that are more modular and robust. We could afford that before, it's just that Linus didn't see the value and put his foot down. Which is definitely a choice.
  - taeric 3y ago
    In a very real sense, the hardware has given a realization of microservice ideas, but at the hardware level. My WIFI card, the common and popular example, probably has more processing power than some of the early desktop computers back in the day. Certainly SSDs are getting much more complicated. They aren't general purpose, but I presume microkernel "services" would also not be general purpose?
    - lmm 3y ago