Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:50:22 +1100 From: Patryk Zadarnowski <pat@jantar.org> To: "SteveB" <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel type Message-ID: <200012160050.LAA97623@mycenae.jantar.org> In-Reply-To: Message from "SteveB" <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com> of "Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:40:31 -0800." <NEBBIGOKKMNLOMOHMJNPAEBHCNAA.admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, "SteveB" <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com> wrote: SteveB> Sorry for such a basic question, but I have been looking and can't SteveB> find the answer. Is FreeBSD as microkernel or monolithic kernel like SteveB> Linux? Can someone point me to the answer/ It's a monolithic kernel, like Linux and all other mainstream UNIX flavours except for OSF1 (ie. Digital UNIX or True64), which is based on a hacked-up version of the MACH microkernel. Even then, most microkernel researchers won't consider OSF1 a microkernel, as Digital (now Compaq) worked around the MACH problem (which is an i-cache hog) by moving much functionality back into the kernel. Now that I think of it, there aren't many commercial microkernel systems out there with the possible exception of QNX and lots of little embedded toys. NT, sometimes claimed to be a microkernel, is far from it. Rather, it's simply another reasonably-well structured kernel. With 300+ system calls in the nucleus, the NT kernel handles just about everything except for major GUI tasks. Pat. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Patryk Zadarnowski University of New South Wales <pat@jantar.org> School of Computer Science and Engineering -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012160050.LAA97623>