Micro vs Monolithic Kernel

Fucking nigger, you managed to trigger me. Here's your (You).

redpill: it doesn't fucking matter

Tanenbaum failed to create a good microkernel. I don't recall any significance to microkernel research be brought.
Nonetheless, microkernels are completely viable, just not early MINIX. Not sure how MINIX stands now.
However, Linus had the ultimate thrught in "Linux is there and it works.", empty promises are pointless.

youtube.com/watch?v=RdoaFc5-1Rk
slideslive.com/38896257/microkernels-and-componentbased-operating-systems

Well intel has it in every CPU it ships

also cse.unsw.edu.au/~cs9242/04/lectures/lect05b.pdf and referenced papers

Minix is (indirectly) the most used OS in the world, and for the wrong reasons. I can't be sure if works, but for sure is doing something...

Attached: happy-intel.jpg (500x500, 84K)

Can you elaborate? I thought linux was the most used

Avoid. It's pointless. Sage and move on.
harmful.cat-v.org/words/

Intel processors run Minix for their management mode.

Intel Management Engine is running on MINIX.

Minix is literally running on every modern Intel processor right now, very very deep in the system.
cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
itsfoss.com/fact-intel-minix-case/

maybe the most installed, but depends on your definition of "used" - I doubt a significant percentage of the population is actively using ME to manage their PCs

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
Is running even if you don't use it, you can't boot your OS without boot your bios first, and you can't boot any bios without boot that minix image in the first place.
Is running even with your computer off (if it is still is plugged)

Wut

>Is running even if you don't use it
I'm aware of that, which is why I said I doubt it's the most "used" as no one is using it if it's just sitting there doing nothing, unless you're a sysadmin and use it for remote management.

Russia and China were worse shitholes than Somalia before Communism and now they're in ur internetz, shilling ur threads

Micro, even google is replacing obsolete linux kernel with a new micro kernel

technically minix is used more due to intel but that doesn't help it evolve/improve like linux

I hear we'll have flying cars very soon.

Haven’t heard of this.

monolithic is best because it means that you can start the operating system in any other computer if the original fails

Fuchsia is a research OS at best, nothing is going to come out of it.

explain, I don't see how monolithic enables it and microkernels don't

cause they used of capitalism to make money. dont you see how they employ cheap labor, pretty much slave labour. to sell things in the west. they have some of the worse capitalism features (worse in the humanitarian sense. not in the does it work to make money sense) and some of the worse communism features.

This, just like RISC vs CISC
20-30 years back these things did matter, but technology caught up and they matter very little anymore.

A Monolithic Kernel is the only Kernel design that will get the performance you truly need. The Microtards can dance around the issue all they want, but context switchs are one of the major bottlenecks of any operating system and introducing more of them is not an option.
We have people running Unikernels just to avoid them, that's how important that is.

>Linux Bendictus Torvalds
kek
obvious bait is obvious

minix was the better kernel at the time but when linux got amd64 support and minux didn't that was the end of the argument.

How is the afterlife Uriel?

Microhair vs monolithic hair

So the benefits of a microkernel no longer matter you mean?

More that the benefits of a /strictly/ micro or monolithic kernel is kinda blown out anymore. The best approach is a hybrid kernel employing both ideas where each best fit for the needs of that given OS and workload. Unironically the NT kernel is a good example of this.

"hybrid kernel" is a fucking meaningless term
it's also not any good according to a decades of research that figured out how to make microkernels a performance beasts

Thank you

>"hybrid kernel" is a fucking meaningless term
No it's not. Some components/funtions are built in to the core kernel like a monolithic setup, and other components communicate though servers like a micro kernel setup. This isn't a wild concept.
>microkernels a performance beasts
lol, not in million years, see You'll never get the same performance in a micro setup as you will in a monolithic. For some things this does not matter and having the that function talking to a server can give a lot of flexibility, but many things come to a detriment for this. Hence the hybrid approach.

>lol, not in million years, see
see the two presentations of real microkernel projects, also referring a significant research in that area
context switch is not expensive, loading uncached kernel memory is. small, page-aligned, cache locality => blazingly fast kernel. this outperforms monolithic kernels where such optimization is not realistic due to sheer amount of stuff in kernel and entry points. yes in reality microkernels are faster than monolithic

This is a bit of "I'll believe it when I see it", but also.. I want to believe.
Are you talking about the presentations in ?