Processes and Communication (2)

[Michael David WINIKOFF]

> 
> =>What is the advantage of having no kernel as opposed to a micro-kernel?
> =>Sounds as if someone said "micro-kernels are better then typical bloated
> =>kernels hence having no kernel must be better still" :-)
> 
>    Well, you'd have to agree that it is a radical idea, and there will
> always be young upstarts like myself that will jump at anything that
> goes against the establishment. :-) I think the basic idea it that if
> you can build a system that is quick and efficient without a kernel,
> then you'll end up with a more flexible system if you get rid of it.
> It also logically separates the different parts of the kernel
> (scheduler, memory manager, communications, etc.) into manageble and
> easily replaceable chunks, just like microkernels do for higher-level
> services.  However, keep in mind that it isn't even unanimously agreed
> upon that microkernels are the way to go, much less non-kernels.

I've read the paper.
The main argument seems to be that there is benefit in having a system wide
address space as opposed to a separate address space for each program.

This has nothing to do with the size/existance of the kernel (IMHO)

> 
>                                         Gary Duzan
>                                         Time  Lord
>                                     Third Regeneration
>                          Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts
> 
> 
> 
> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Winikoff
winikoff@cs.mu.oz.au
Computer science honours. University of Melbourne, Australia.