Talk:Monolithic system

Antonymic or alternative concepts to a Monolithic system?
I appreciate if articles that describe concepts or methods, also describe antonymic or alternative approaches, which is missing in. --PutzfetzenORG (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh ?
"Monolithic architectures implemented on DOS and earlier Windows based PCs often worked poorly with multiple users. This performance degradation is mainly due to poor mechanisms for record locking and file handling across local area networks."


 * This is rather strange? DOS and early windows does not have networking capabilities. Did someone just make this up? ~:@! Crakkpot (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Moar
I don't believe this article is accurate. Most references to "Monolithic System" that I can find on google are referring to either a Monolithic kernel or the actual compan known as "Monolithic System Technology Inc." I'm going to put this stub on VfD. Timbatron 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be merged.--BMF81 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A monolithic kernal and monolithic system are completely different. For example, the Linux Kernel (which is monolithic) is very separated from it's userland which primarily consists of independantly developed GNU projects as well as other software depending on the distro. On the other hand we have Windows XP, which will not work without IE (and other bundled software) but IE has absolutely nothing to do with kernel or even the core parts of the NT system. To me WinXP should be defined as a monolithic system, the linux kernal as a monolithic kernal. Two completely different things. --151.118.1.197 18:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

no merge Not the same topic at all. I question the article itself. I'll add some tags. Widefox 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Both the topics are different. Monolithic architecture does not imply operating systems. Its a general term. Bibhu

The two articles should be kept separated. The article about monolithic kernels is somewhat operating system dependent which has nothing to do with general architectural concerns. Although a monolithic architecture is difficult to describe I would say it has the following properties: 1. Undefined structure, i.e. explicit global structural patterns like components, modules, appropriate dependencies, etc. are not manifested in the source code (the architecture is monolithic even if you have nice components in UML diagrams but have not brought them down to the implementation). Therefore a monolithic architecture differs from an unstructured one in the way that there is no global structure. 2. Missing support for flexible deployment, i.e. the whole software must be available during runtime (and more: available on one machine, in one process, etc.), otherwise the whole thing does not work or (much worse) the behaviour is fault-prone or not deterministic. Martin J. 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)