> > > As I read more and more about Hurd.. I still can't stop thinking > > > "WHY?".. in a couple hundred more revisions.. the Linux kernel may well > > > come close to being a microkernel. What are the clear cut benefits? > > > (Just a few simple lines please.. no dissertations.. I'd as a professor > > > of computer science for that...) > > > > There is a grand old discussion archived on KDE's web site at > > http://www.kde.org/food/linux_is_obsolete.html > > > > That's the one with Linus and the guy who created Minix right? I think > I read through that old news archive about 2 years ago.. it came > included on the Slackware CD release I had at the time. > > Cute.. funny.. but it didn't really answer any of the questions as to > WHY. Is there a speed increase? Is there a security increase? > Stability? Power? What?
It does answer those questions. According to the people who know (which excludes me), the monolithic kernel is arguably faster and much easier to program. The microkernel is supposedly more modular and more portable. The discussion is each side debunking other. Paul Serice -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
