I'm curious as to the whole microkernel vs. macrokernel archtiecture
Supposedly microkernel design is supposed to make it that much easier for
the kernel to be ported to various hardware architectures in addition to
other dubious benefits.
But what I've seen is that many platforms that tout a so-called
microkernel are not easily ported despite the arguments to the contrary.
Is this because of lack of interest or is it being proven via real world
example that the whole microkernel porting thing is inherently incorrect?
A perfect example of this is the latest 64bit AMD Hammer chips. Now,
supposedly, the Windows NT family is built off of a microkernel design. As
such, it should have been able to be ported to this new arch fairly
quickly. OTOH, Linux, which is a macrokernel, should have been a PIA to
port over to this new arch.
But what we see is exactly the opposite: the macrokernel platform (Linux)
was ported first and the microkernel platform (Windows) still isn't
available. The same for many other architectures.
So what is one to make of that? Is it simply a matter of manpower or are
there technological issues that should be considered?
rapskat - 23:52:04 up 4 days, 8:52, 5 users, load average: 2.30, 2.05, 1.94
Gentoo Base System version 18.104.22.168 kernel 2.5.68 on a Pentium III (Coppermine)
Countdown until T.G. Reaper's Super Duper Linux Root Exploit:
179 days, 02 hours, 07 minutes, 57 seconds