Bill Moran writes:
First would be historical. BSD is historically a monolithic kernel. The more
you rely on modules, the more the kernel acts like a microkernel. I suspect
The kernel will still not be a microkernel.. it doesn't really matter at what time the stuff is linked; a microkernel generally uses message passing between mostly independent server processes, which is not what the BSD kernel does.
I made two seperate comments here, and you stretched them into something I didn't mean. Comment 1: KLDs are more microkernlish than compiled-in modules Comment 2: Looking into my crystal ball, I think that one day the FreeBSD kernel will be a microkernel.
This doesn't mean that I think making things into KLDs makes the kernel a microkernel. I understand that there are other characteristics of microkernels that are seperate from the simple idea of loadable kernel modules. All I'm saying is that KLDs are a move away from the traditional compiled-in monolithic kernel. That move is in the direction of microkernel. It's a long ways away yet, but it's pointing that direction.
Whether comment #2 ever becomes reality or not remains to be seen.
Besides, Windows claims to be a microkernel and it doesn't act like one at all ... hell, any change you make requires a reboot. And they get away with calling it a microkernel.
-- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
