Hi, Pedants of the world, unite, and fight the good fight. I was trying to say in my previous email that the language we use in this thread is not ideal.
Linux is a monolithic kernel + modules - it is not a micro kernel. John's original subject line says it quite nicely "of not quite monolithic kernel" However, he then went on to talk about micro kernels and linux. Which is misleading... Consequently, Delio's comment on message passing is crucial. a)a micro kernel uses message passing between the different components. It is possible to have user space device drivers. b)a monolithic kernel has everything in common, in the same memory space. Linux is essentially a monolithic kernel, which uses modules. > /me braces for the inevitable pedantry chain-reaction. You can, but anyone who uses/partipats in open source is always braced for some form of a reaction. It is a measure of the group what the style of reaction is. When you see personal attacks, it is time to move on.. Derek. On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Delio Brignoli wrote: > On 13/02/2008, at 9:14 AM, John Carter wrote: > >What ever the merits of the grand debate about Micro vs Monolithic Kernels > >are.... > > I am not trying to be pedantic here, or maybe I am ;-) but... > > The difference between micro-kernels and monolithic kernels is not about > having loadable modules. > Informally the difference is that 'modules' access other services offered by > other modules in the OS using a message passing mechanism. In linux once a > module is loaded it can directly call any kernel API it likes, directly. > > /me braces for the inevitable pedantry chain-reaction. > -- > Delio > -- Derek Smithies Ph.D. IndraNet Technologies Ltd. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph +64 3 365 6485 Web: http://www.indranet-technologies.com/
