[lug] minix vs. linux

[Zan Lynx]

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 16:22 -0600, siegfried wrote:
[snip]
> Can someone explain the merits of the microkernel architecture? I
> believe it is supposed to be more stable because system services are
> implemented in seperatate processes which can be restarted?
[snip]
> And the benefit: Windows is more stable! I guess that is why Windows 3.0 was
> not stable: it did not use the micro kernel architecture!
> 
> So in case you did not know it: this explains why windows is so much more
> stable than linux ;)

Windows NT 3.5 quite stable.  Slow, though.  Later versions of NT moved
more things into the core kernel where they would be faster.

Another benefit of micro-kernel architecture is developer understanding
and debugging.  When separate parts of the kernel are memory protected,
developers only have to worry about what they *know* can affect their
code.  A file-system pointer freed but mistakenly kept in a structure
somewhere can never be used to write over the network packets.
-- 
Zan Lynx <zlynx at acm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20060419/db528dff/attachment.pgp>