Re: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels

[nemo@gsyc.escet.urjc.es]

The funny thing is that services like drivers, file systems, et al.
are out of the kernel in Plan 9 since they come mostly from the network.
Certainly, you get your drivers in the kernel, but I'm used to import
many of them from the network. So, you can replace, develop and debug much
`kernel software' in user space, which IMHO was the original aim of the
uKernel camp. What I like most is that the system design is not pushed too far
just to get more stuff out of the kernel.

I'd say that Plan 9 has a well-engineered kernel: Not micro, not macro. ☺


:  Andrey A Mirtchovski <aam396@mail.usask.ca> wrote:
:  >i seem to remember reading somewhere a reasoning on why it was chosen to
:  >implement p9 with a monolithic kernel, instead of a micro one..
:
:  Charles Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com> replied:
:  >the implied comparison is false.  to start with, the plan 9 kernel
:  >is not  `monolithic'.  it is highly modular.
:
:  I've heard people use the term `monolithic' to describe an operating
:  system that may or may not have been modular, but was a `monolithic
:  monitor'. Years ago, I was a junior on a project developing such a