Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Monolithic kernel design (Score 2) 129

Also, modularity really doesn't suffer at the hands of a macrokernel.

In the current Linux kernel, there are few constraints on what part of the kernel a module can depend on or what data structures it can modify. And any fault in a kernel module can cause the whole kernel to crash.

Both of those issues make it really difficult for people to add new functionality to the kernel, and I think are significantly responsible for the long release cycles.

A microkernel isn't the only approach to achieving this kind of modularity--using a language with a little bit more error checking and support for interfaces would do the same thing without the overhead of a microkernel design. And adding runtime support for C++, natively-compiled Java, a JIT, Modula-2, Oberon, Modula-3, or any of a number of a number of other languages would be feasible. But my impression is that that would not stand a chance of making it into the distribution even as an optional module.

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.