Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 May 1999 16:57:56 -0700 (PDT) | From | Jason Stone <> | Subject | Linux is a MicroKernal? |
| |
> From: "Vishal Rao" <trash32@hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 00:43:51 GMT > Subject: Linux is a MicroKernal? [was Re: is Linux obsolete?] > > isnt linux a micro-kernel? i would think so! if we can config it to > be a cool 400k in size with loadabel modules?
Linux is very much not a micro-kernel.
Micro-kernel doesn't have to do with the size of the image, it has to do with the overall design and where you place certain functionality. In a monolithic kernel, you put all the things necesary to a working system in the kernel. In a micro-kernel, you have almost nothing in the actual kernel and all your functionality happens in user space daemons.
In fact, things like knfsd and projects like khttpd make it look like we're moving even more towards a monolithic model instead of the other way around.
I have a question, though maybe this isn't the right place to ask it: how does MkLinux work? My understanding is that Linux is run as a single server on top of a Mach kernel. Is this true? And if so, is it possible to run it on any platform that is supported by Mach? There's an HP PA-Risc Linux port in progress; I think that Mach already supports PA-Risc - if so, why couldn't you just run MkLinux on your HP 9000's instead of doing a full-on port?
-Jason
--------------------------- A man said to the Universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |