Rusky wrote:
It's not really a typical microkernel- they didn't really try to minimize the kernel itself, and they didn't isolate system services from each other or their client processes.
At least the picture above looks like microkernel and some system services. Are the services isolated or not is hidden somewhere within the
http://www.microsoft.com.
Rusky wrote:
Instead, they moved large chunks of the kernel into a library that gets linked with each application.
What is a difference between "moving large chunks of the kernel" and "use the same kernel"? Is there any separation of components or some refactoring performed? Or it means just extraction of system services from monolithic kernel? If the last is true then now it is not a monolithic kernel, or it is?
Rusky wrote:
There's no interceptor, the apps just call the library directly (without recompilation, because windows apps already call into a dll to make system calls). That way, bugs in the library OS only take down the particular app that triggers them, rather than the whole kernel (as in a monolithic architecture) or the service (as in a microkernel).
But if as you have said there is no isolation - why the bug takes down just a particular application instead of the whole kernel?
I hope they manged to make some refactoring and to introduce some componentization (isolation). But I haven't studied the OS in depth.