From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels From: nemo@gsyc.escet.urjc.es MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20010417083334.281B019A11@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:35:33 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 841e770a-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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 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 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