🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microkernel
Jump to content

Talk:Microkernel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Microkernel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links fixed, archived links work. Guy Harris (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy scheduling

[edit]

The short discussion on lazy scheduling seems to be an idiosyncrasy of the original L4 implementation, and not a design principle that is applicable to microkernels in general. In a typical synchronous IPC implementation there is absolutely no need for the sender to be put on the ready queue (it is blocked, not ready). Consequently, there is no benefit to the so-called optimization described here. In any case, QNX does not implement such a scheme, contrary to what is stated in the last sentence of the paragraph. Elahav (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

uKernel == RTOS?

[edit]

Hi, can we say a uKernel is a (modern) RTOS? How to draw the line in 2021 with hundreds of RTOS available but few "microkernel OS". What qualifies for each architecture? Which RTOS show uKernel ambitions, which don't? Article mentions QNX, which is clearly called RTOS these days. If I cross-read this article, it clearly needs updating. --17387349L8764 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Section Nanokernel needs cleaning; it mentions 'historically'; this term is not used in professional environments at all.--17387349L8764 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qubes is not a member of the microkernel family, that is absurd.

[edit]

A solitary kernel cannot be all types of kernels at once. A.K.A. This is computer science not philosophy, we are not playing Wittgenstein, and this is not Bertrand Russell's set theory.

In regard to the absurd insinuation that Qubes is a member of the microkernel family, such interjection completely misses the distinction between A) a minimalistic stripped down monolithic kernel, and B) a kernel specifically designed to implement the microkernel structure. The result of which leaves much ambiguity to what a microkernel is, and practically renders the term meaningless.

Qubes began life as a fork of Fedora. It merely facilitates implementation of the Xen Hypervisor, and the system is further hardened to ensure isolation of applications. The Xen Hypervisor was solely implemented for the Linux Kernel, but recently has now been implemented for the Mach MicroKernel. Yet, the Qubes wikipedia page still lists Qubes as a Linux-like Operating system, and the official documentation confirms it primarily implements the Linux Kernel. The Linux Kernel is a Monolithic Kernel, intentionally designed to be such, and not considered to be a microkernel.

Furthermore, Qubes implements a templating system, which means, one can build a Qubes distribution by using any Linux distribution that supports the Xen Hypervisor. As those Linux distributions do not use a microkernel, then neither does Qubes.

[1] [2]

Williamthebrand (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubes_OS
  2. ^ https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/user/advanced-topics/managing-vm-kernels.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microkernel&oldid=1319035167"