5 ms·
It happens all the time? Who said it didn’t? I don’t understand your very premise: Why does a monolithic kernel imply “central control” when developing, and a
by anyfoo 2y ago
It happens all the time? Who said it didn’t?
I don’t understand your very premise: Why does a monolithic kernel imply “central control” when developing, and a microkernel not? How does one or the other change the “politics” of the kernel? Can you state what you think the difference between a monolithic and a microkernel actually is?
- 23B1 2y agoThe "politics" isn't a technical paradigm, it's a human one. I'm not arguing the merits of one over the other, I'm offering an answer to OP's question.
- anyfoo 2y agoAgain, what is the difference between a microkernel and a monolithic kernel, and why does it influence the politics of development? And, again, why does a monolithic kernel imply “central control” in development, over a microkernel?
- 23B1 2y agoThe difference is how they get built probably will be different when humans have to stop writing code
- anyfoo 2y agoNo, the difference is in what parts of the OS are in what privilege level and address space, and how they communicate with each other. It has nothing to do with the shape of teams building them. If someone is building a filesystem or a network protocol for the system, then the difference between that person implementing a server for a microkernel or a kernel module for a monolithic kernel is purely a low-level-detail technical one.
- 23B1 2y agoI think we're talking past each other. You want to discuss architecture and that's fine, super. I'm merely offering a different explanation for why software, which is presently built by humans, might express different configurations based on that fact. It's not a qualitative statement as to the merits of one over the other.