4 ms·
Monolithic kernels don't "focus on correctness". Some people might when writing one, plan 9 for example. But plenty don't, like linux as the most obvious exam
by papsosouid 13y ago
Monolithic kernels don't "focus on correctness". Some people might when writing one, plan 9 for example. But plenty don't, like linux as the most obvious example.
- m0th87 13y agoInterestingly, important parts of the Linux kernel are proven correct (e.g. the scheduler). But yeah...not the whole thing.
- papsosouid 13y agoWhat? When and where has any part of linux been proven correct?
- p9idf 13y agoReading the Plan 9 kernel code hasn't convinced me that its authors focused on correctness. The kernel code is pretty, and its twenty-year-old architecture could pass as only ten years old; but even excluding drivers, there is no shortage of bugs.
- papsosouid 13y agoYou found lots of bugs reading the plan 9 kernel source, and forgot to report them?
- strictfp 13y agoWhat I mean is that they try to achieve stability by eliminating bugs, not by doing damage control. Proactive vs reactive.
- papsosouid 13y agoAnd what I mean is that is simply not true. Monolithic kernels give us unstable systems like windows, linux, BSDs, etc. Virtually ever highly reliable operating system is built on a microkernel.