Skip to content

Comment on What's wrong with systemd

Comments

The theme of Monolithic vs. Modular reminds me of Linux vs. Minix.

The Tanenbaum–Torvalds debate was a debate between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds, regarding Linux and kernel architecture in general. Tanenbaum began the debate in 1992 on the Usenet discussion group comp.os.minix, arguing that microkernels are superior to monolithic kernels and therefore Linux was, even in 1992, obsolete. Other notable hackers such as David S. Miller and Theodore Ts'o joined the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deba...

A link to the newsgroup discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.minix/wlhw16...

More like a tightly-coupled (monolithic) vs loosely-coupled (non-monolithic) debate. Systemd is modular, but its components are tightly-coupled. The key difference between systemd vs the existing userspace, and Linux vs Minix, is that there's ~50 years precedent of loosely-coupled being the winning design paradigm in the long run. This is because a system made of loosely-coupled components allows the user to add, remove, and swap out parts independently of one another without having to drop the whole OS, thereby gaining the ability to adapt the OS to a changing set of requirements with minimal cost. Tightly-coupled systems do not have this advantage, and it makes them brittle in the face of change.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.