Talk:Microkernel

Nanokernel section should be removed
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 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added tag to http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=15350
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303174121/http://www.eros-os.org/papers/oakland2000.ps to http://www.eros-os.org/papers/oakland2000.ps
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621235229/http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/NanoKernel/NanoKernel.html to http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/NanoKernel/NanoKernel.html
 * Added tag to http://citeseer.csail.mit.edu/cs?q=microkernel
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.byte.com/art/9401/sec8/art2.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.coyotos.org/docs/misc/linus-rebuttal.html

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

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


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

Lazy scheduling
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)

uKernel
RTOS? ==

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)


 * 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)