Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> Why not starting a microkernel arch?
IMHO the microkernel is the emperor's new clothes (so is OOP, but that,
I suspect, I won't
get quite so much agreement on).
Context switching has been mentioned, but in addition to that, the real
problem is that it
really doesn't change anything. It may somewhat simplify a non-critical
driver like a serial
port or a mouse or the like, but if a SCSI HBA driver crashes, it's
likely going to make
life for the microkernel very hairy, just like it would a full kernel.
And a driver bug can cause the hardware to wedge the machine whether the
driver is in
protected or user mode too.
Most people who I talk to who bring up microkernel do it because they
see the process of compiling
a FreeBSD kernel and think that microkernels are somehow the opposite of
that. If that's the
case, they should believe that Solaris is a microkernel, which it
patently is not.
NT comes closer, with its rings of protection, but you can hardly call
that a picture of
stabiliy.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
