On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 20:58:24 +0100
Edward Bartolo <edbarx@???> wrote:

> I know little about this Hurd 'little' thing, but it gives me the
> shivers like systemd. Similar to the latter, there is a small core at
> the centre with all the other helper executables intercommunicating.
> Sounds too complicated to get the added advantage, of having a very
> minimal kernel running with root privileges, while all other helper
> executables that do not need root privileges, run with a lesser
> priviledge.
>
> If I am remember well, MS Windows (the operating system) does have a
> micro-kernel, but is it more efficient with an extra layer of
> intercommunication?

A microkernel architecture makes it easier replacing one of it's peripheral
modules or even the core with another one, which is a boon for people wishing
to customise their OS down to the guts. A big, monolithic kernel is more
difficult to change, as an even small change in a place could entail
adjustments in several other places with unexpected results. Hurd is the
extension to the kernel of the Unix principle: "have several small components
do specific, simple tasks and combine them together to perform complex
tasks."
On the other hand, microkernel architectures make intercommunication of
it's peripheral components between themselves and the core more difficult to
synchronise and attune for best efficiency and to avoid bottlenecks and
stalemates.


Alessandro