MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-07-02 |
| FROM | Ron Guerin
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Defending Small Schools
|
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 20:59, Adam Kosmin wrote:
> " Monolithic isnt always a bad thing. The Linux kernel is considered
> " monolithic. The GNU Hurd kernel is considered to be a mico kernel.
> "
> " Steve M
>
> I never understood this statement regarding the Linux kernel. From what
> I understand, it can be monolithic if compiled as such. The other route
> being a modular one.
I'm hardly authoritative about these things, but I think I can explain.
Linux began life solidly as a monolithic kernel, and is now known as a
"hybrid monolithic kernel", so it's neither a pure monolithic kernel,
nor is it a microkernel. (see Steve Milo's explanation about the
difference) Since it's a major architectural decision, it's not the
sort of thing you can change your mind about on a whim as a kernel
developer. Linux has evolved some in the direction of a microkernel
architecture, and it's this hybridization that allows for modular
kernels and loadable/unloadable modules.
While these things are not unrelated, what you're thinking of are the
choices you make when building your own executable copy of the kernel.
If you compile a "monolithic kernel" without even support for modules,
"The Linux Kernel" is still a hybrid kernel. It's just that yours
wouldn't be.
- Ron
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
