Jump to content

Talk:Monolithic kernel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Golftheman (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 12 August 2010 (→Article Title and Terminology is Wrong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Text Improvement

Text like "A monolithic kernel is a kernel architecture where the entire kernel is run in kernel space in supervisor mode." needs to be cleaned up. "entire kernel is run in kernel space " Kernel is suppose to be in Kernel Space. I think what it meant here is that apart from Kernel section, Device Driver and other modules like File system and security system, network system are also made part of the Kernel system. (May Be I am wrong .. but someone who knows better should update and clean this section.

Amberved (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be like: "A Monolithic kernel is a kernel architecture where the entire operating system is run in kernel space in supervisor mode." At least this is the point of Monolithic- and Microkernel structures, where Monolith kernel is the OS because it includes all OS servers itself, but operating system what has microkernel structure, has microkernel alone in kernel space and other OS servers in user space, where all other software is located too. Kernel is usually always located in kernel space, but when you run example a Monolith kernel (=OS) in virtual machine, like Linux top of L4 kernel, the L4 microkernel is located alone in kernel space and the Client OS (Linux) is running in userspace. Even then the Linux is running alone in supervisor mode. 213.130.236.207 (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram improvement

  • The kernel is "low level" code; it should be on the bottom of the diagram, not the top.
  • It would be helpful to show functional parts, such as device drivers, the scheduler, network interfaces, filesystem interfaces; hardware like the CPU, disk, network, keyboard, and screen; and software examples, like programming libraries, web browser, mail server, etc.
  • It's not clear what the thick white arrows represent.
  • Multiple pieces of software can run on a multitasking operating system, so multiple boxes should be shown to represent applications.

-- Beland 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good example of a more informative illustration: Image:Windows 2000 architecture.svg. -- Beland 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is unreadable at the image's normal display size, and the image contains non-functional gradients and coloration. LokiClock (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On "monolithic"

In what respect is a monolithic kernel a more well-defined subject than monolithic code in general? Can the article be generalized? Also, how does "monolithic" compare to spaghetti code? While "monolithic" is not as pejorative, are they conceptually any different? Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hp-ux is monolithic kernel?

I read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-UX that, it is also runs on monolithic kernel method. Does this OS also need to be added here ? Kanthaa (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be listed here as HP-UX really is monolithic OS. Golftheman (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slackware?

Isn't Slackware simply a GNU/Linux distro? Or is there some sort of history behind it where did not use Linux? I don't think adding a bunch of Linux distros to be the most sane thing to do, even though the kernels are slightly different. --SeyedKevin (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slackware is distribution of the Linux OS. There is no such OS as GNU/Linux, it is a development platform (Linux OS + GNU development tools). Linux (kernel) is monolithic OS. The Linux versions gets released almost every week/month and every distributor make own compilation configs. Such actions does not make Linux different OS. To get different OS, Linux should be forked first. And such thing has not happened. BSD has been forked and some forks have been forked again. Like Dragonfly BSD has been forked from FreeBSD. But Free-, Open- and Net- are all monolithic OS's. From FreeBSD there is kFreeBSD version what is a Server-Client. As well the FreeBSD has been forked to other BSD OS called Dragonfly BSD. It has Server-Client architecture as well. What is tricky part, is that parts of the FreeBSD has been as well use in XNU OS. But because XNU is Server-Client, it does not belong here. And neither does XNU is OS of the BSD family, because the microkernel is Mach and many other OS functions are non-BSD. Slackware is just simply software system what use Linux as it OS. Same thing goes for all Linux distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora, OpenSUSE and so on. Even Android, MeeGo, Bada and WebOS are just Linux distributions, technically really just using Linux as the OS. But marketing has tried to hide that and have successed in that pretty well. Golftheman (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title and Terminology is Wrong

I believe that title of this article is wrong. The terminology used here should be "supervisory mode kernel" rather than a "monolithic kernel". The word monolithic means "made from a single stone" (ie a monolithic kernel is build in a monolithic fashion and is not composed of modules, in other words a monolithic kernel is the opposite of a modular kernel, which has the capability of loading modules.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhobley (talk • contribs) 08:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be monolithic even if it were modular because the modules are within the single structure.

If it is made up of modules, then it is modular, regardless of how the modules are arranged. Monolithic / Modular are terms describing structural build, rather than addressing methods, protection rings, etc. IMHO of course - Mark.

It does not matter is the OS modular or not when it is in binary level. The OS architecture has not changed at all even then, it is still working as single binary. The modularity is in binary levele, not in architecture level. That is one mistake what new students does and believes that all modules are always same. The OS architectures are actually very simple, but understanding them can be tricky one in first place. Especially when it comes modularity. The "supervisory mode kernel" does not mean anything. The history explains it pretty clearly that "supervisor" is one of the names for the OS, as well the "kernel, core, master program, operating system, nucleos" and so on. The term "operating system" just happened to survive because it presents best way the technology development and different architectures. But it is raiped by the marketing to include all other system software and application programs than just the OS. Golftheman (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monolithic_kernel&oldid=378602602"