Just curious..

--
regards

From what I've seen, it's monolithic

Can you tell me the difference of them?

i knew linux is monolithic, gnu/hurd and ms-windows is micro.

personally, i like monolithic. don't know why.

Linux is a hybrid; it's monolithic but supports separate modules

GNU/Hurd is based on Mach, and is a microkernel

Windows was based loosely on a microkernel design. but has become increasingly monolithic with each new version.

Monolithic kernels tend to be simpler than microkernels. They build all (or for a modular design) or most of the drivers into the kernel. This is simpler, and tends to be faster.

Microkernels are based on the idea that a kernel should implement little more than a schedular and interprocess communications. In theory they're nice, but outside of QNX they are normally more problematic than a monolithic kernel. On the other hand, they can be more stable since drivers are simply separate programs which can be stopped/restarted independently.

I prefer monolithic kernels myself -- simplicity is always nice

Linux could be able to run without module, module is just option.

i mean kernel can be recompiled with no-module.(with 0-module, but still have to type in shell, like this, debian:~#make modules_install; /usr/sbin/mkinitrd -o ...)

I know, but the code to handle modules exists in the source tree, that's why I called it a "hybrid" kernel

according to os design and implementation by ast & asw
monokothic : run all drivers(fs and devices) in kernel space
microkernel : run most of drivers in user space and they can connected through messages