User talk:Lionel/What kind of kernel should I make?
I have a problem with the notion of "monolithic == unstable". For one, stability relies very much on the quality of code. The monolithic architecture is statistically more prone to kernel crashes than a microkernel if both have the same code quality. Two, while a microkernel might not experience kernel crashes as often, it takes quite some skill to have your system recover from, say, a crash of the filesystem server. If your system is rendered inoperable, it doesn't matter much if it was the kernel or a user-space process to blame... Hence, and to avoid rants like this very one, I would attempt to tender my statements a bit, not taking sides. -- Solar 04:14, 25 June 2012 (CDT)
Making it a normal page.
Should I make this a normal page?
- Needs a bit more polish. For example, in the midst of the microkernel section, you talk about "archetypes" being created. Being a regular here, I have an idea what you're aiming at, but read your article with the eyes of a newbie, and you'll see where it could be confusing. Personally, I also prefer a more sombre tone in a tutorial, but that's just me. -- Solar 08:02, 27 June 2012 (CDT)
- Yeah, I guess, but not too sombre. --Lionel 15:03, 27 June 2012 (CDT)
- Call it occupational hazard. I've been documenting my day's work for business departments for years. They don't even get the average joke. -- Solar 02:00, 28 June 2012 (CDT)