Talk:Microkernel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not merge[edit]

The microkernel concept is best discussed as a topic by itself. The microkernel subject is vast and interesting enough to be independent discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.169.72.157 (talkcontribs) 13:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging with "Kernel" article[edit]

A merging of the article "microkernel" with the "kernel" article was proposed because of the possibility of producing "redundant information" between the two. Redundancy did exist at the time of the proposal. Moving the material permanentyl to "kernel" would have resulted in a redirect from "microkernel" and avoidance of such redudancy.

However, many agreed the microkernel concept is "best discussed as a topic by itself" and warranted "independent discussion". One was hesitant to adding material on microkernels to the "kernel" article because it consequently "would seriously weigh down" the latter.

The article originally also had material that slighted microkernels, rather than explaining. Since then, more descriptive material on microkernels found on the L4 kernel and Mach kernel pages has been transferred to the microkernel article. The material at "Kernel" has been moved to the "microkernel" article, and reduandant edits should now be avoided.

The merger has been averted for now, but the article still needs other work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.195.151 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding Singularity[edit]

Shouldn't Singularity be on the list of microkernels? 7-nov-2005 20:33 CET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.55.140 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


I would concur with the addition of Singularity and the merging of the topics until the size of the content dictates otherwise. dru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.205.105 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nanokernel section should be removed[edit]

I am not aware of any significant use of the term Nanokernel other than what essentially appears to be a catchy name for a microkernel. Even the referred KeyKOS paper implies that the KeyKOS nanokernel is, in fact, a microkernel: "What sets KeyKOS apart from other microkernels is...". I therefore propose to remove the whole section on the grounds that nanokernel is rather a fringe term used to market one specific product. All in all, it brings no benefit to the Microkernel page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjermar (talkcontribs) 10:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)