Talk:Megalithic Kernel

From OSDev Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this a real term? Citation needed :) --Love4boobies 12:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase has certainly been used before within the hobby OSdev community, though I agree it's not an academic term. Still, it's a useful term. Do you have a better suggestion to name this sort of kernel? Xvedejas 14:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with the name. I just think it might be dangerous to invent terms because we'll end up confusing people. Names obviously need to come from somewhere, but I don't think this wiki is the place---it should probably come from the industry, we are a small community here.

As for the VM thing, I don't think you got my point: Address spaces are not a hardware concept; they can be implemented in software just as well. E.g., Singularity is a microkernel even when configured to run everything in kernel mode (processor-wise). Hence, if you implement a VM in a megalithic kernel, applications won't be able to see/touch the kernel or other applications---you end up with either a microkernel or a monolithic one, depending on the design.

--Love4boobies 18:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; what I'm trying to describe then is not a design in opposition to a monolithic/mircokernel, but it is still a class of kernels that doesn't seem to be discussed on this wiki. Would you suggest instead I remove this article and create a section on the article Kernel? Xvedejas 19:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia procedure applies, more exactly WP:OR. A Google search for "megalithic kernel" yielded a whooping 19 (!) results, of which just half a dozen use the term in the way described here, and of those almost all use it in a derogatory way. I don't think it's a "design pattern" we should describe here at all. That's like describing the benefits of spaghetti code in a Wiki about coding styles... -- Solar 12:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but this might be where "megalithic" came from: [1] (I'm not aware of any older uses). To me it means "drivers and applications as part of the kernel", in the same way that "monolithic" means "drivers as part of the kernel". It shouldn't be confused with things like managed OSs, where applications aren't built into the kernel (but do run at CPL=0, possibly inside of some sort of sandbox with software isolation or virtualisation/byte-code). I'd also assume that the only sane use for a "megalithic" kernel is in embedded systems. For example, imagine a thin-client with a VNC client built into its firmware, or a router with a HTML server (for a configuration interface) built into ROM. --Brendan 01:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Xvedejas got the point that if kernels are implmeneted as he describes in the article, then they are not acutally megalithic. However, I think the most important issue is whether we should call them megalithic on the wiki or not. So far 2 people voted no. --Love4boobies 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OSnews (correctly) used the word "megalithic" today: --Brendan 04:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's likely that you coined that term :) --Love4boobies here is some more proof! --Gat

Personal tools