3 ms·

This sound a bit like Tanenbaum's rejection of Torvals' project, because monolithic kernels are obsolete.

• xiffle 1y ago
  Tanenbaum was right, the future of the Linux kernel is dire, and it's been a huge setback to operating systems research in practical terms. Fortunately, vendors are gradually moving away from Linux, having been hamstrung by its failures. Google is planning to move to a capability-based microkernel in the coming years for Android and ChromeOS, and Huawei has already done so with HarmonyOS. In a hundred years, Linux will be a footnote in computing history.
  • 1718627440 1y ago
    Irregardless of whether this is true, it has not prevented adoption of Linux.
    • xiffle 1y ago
      And McDonalds is one of the most popular restaurants worldwide despite the questionable food quality.
• pjmlp 1y ago
  Most OSes use either hybrid kernels, or type 1 hypervisors, which are microkernels by another name.
  • Dylan16807 1y ago
    If 10% of your OS code is in a small piece that might be called a microkernel, and 90% is in one huge blob that implements everything else, then you don't really have a microkernel OS. Or to phrase that more directly at the point: for monolithic kernels to be obsolete you have to break up the monolithic part, not just shim a microkernel hypervisor on top of it.
    • pjmlp 1y ago
      Depends on which OS, there are more than three out there. Additionally there is a certain irony to use a monolithic Linux kernel, only to drown it on layers and layers of containers with Kubernetes.