5 ms·
And what prevents a microkernel from having the exact same owners as a monolithic kernel, working on the exact same things? This isn't web development, where "
by anyfoo 2y ago
And what prevents a microkernel from having the exact same owners as a monolithic kernel, working on the exact same things?
This isn't web development, where "microservices" came up as a way to distribute complex software across stakeholders. There are very hard purely technical reasons for (or against!) microkernels, and the majority of microkernels (if not all) are still released and distributed in a "monolithic" model, i.e. an update distributes all components of it (modulo delta updates, which is also just a technicality).
- 23B1 2y ago> And what prevents a microkernel from having the exact same owners as a monolithic kernel, working on the exact same things? Nothing inherent to the software is preventing anything. You could be right about the technical justifications. But OP's question wasn't "which is better?" it was "why?"
- anyfoo 2y agoI am addressing the “why” that you both claim. The person I replied to said, I quote: > A distributed project encourages fiefdoms, a centralized one asks for a taskmaster with final say. What does the distinction between microkernel and monolithic kernel have to do with whether the project is “distributed”, or whether it is a “fiefdom”?
- 23B1 2y agoresources: time effort money buy-in morale credit pride