If you do things right speed isn't that bad. The Microkernel approach
gives you a nice and easy to understand OS structure. On the other side
for things like a filesystem you get multithreading for free.
Yes - but like any threading code you still have to put locks all over the
place and hence may not achieve huge performance gains.
In a microkernel OS you end up implementing some part of a monolithic
kernel again... Not to mentioned that all the microkernels I've seen
violate their own strict structuring rules.
I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. But I've yet to see any
single microkernel offer all the advantages commonly found in textbooks.
Digital Unix probably comes the closest IMO. (I like Digital Unix, so I'm
> I think DEC cheated a bit by placing everything in the same address
> space anyhow for this reason. (Or was this only for OSF/1?)
The Evil Empire did the same for NT 4.0.
I though this was only for the GDI? I've used NT since the 3.1 days (hey,
shoot me) and only now (4.0) are we lucky anough to get all sorts of
previously unknown weird bugs which appear to be related to buggy video
drivers.... that's not to say there weren't lots of bugs before.