Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-22,: Linux is a MicroKernal?

# Linux is a MicroKernal?

Jason Stone (jason@shalott.net)
Fri, 28 May 1999 16:57:56 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Richard Gooch: "Re: 2.3 wish. Scsi ID's"
- Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: functions from 2.0 replaced by?"

> 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/

- Next message: Richard Gooch: "Re: 2.3 wish. Scsi ID's"
- Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: functions from 2.0 replaced by?"