Re: monoholitic, hybrid or not monoholitic?

[Matt Kavanagh <matthew@teh.ath.cx>]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:27:25PM +0200, Patrick Kiwitter- Mailinglist wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> hello world,
> 
> i've invested a couple of hours to find a correct description of the
> linux kernel achritecture. most books or litretures (in general) are
> talking about a monoholitic kernel (incl. linux kernel development -
> robert love and understanding the linux kernel - oreilly). i also asked
> google an read the kernel.org faq.
> 
> the kernel were mostly descripted as monoholitic. but some sources means
> that the linux kernel is not really monoholitic because of the feature
> of loading kernel modules. some pages are talking about a "hybrid
> kernel" which means that the kernel is a glue one, a little bit of
> monoholitic and a little bit not.
> 
> so i would like to receive detailed information where i can read a
> correct description of course you can also post your comments here (if
> allowed). by the way, yes i've read the "tanenbaum" reffering monoholitc.
> 
> thanks a lot in advanced,
> patrick
> 
I'd tend towards monolithic because the modules (as mentioned) run in kernel
space; but it's not a cookie-cutter case. Things are implemented in userspace
that provide functionality normally included in the kernel; udev springs to
mind, even if it is not the predominant solution.