> history has proven

What history? What proof? What evidence?

What commercial microkernel systems are you referencing that suffer from trivial LPEs? Or whole system DoS from unprivileged code execution? To the extent that you argue your alleged failure modes are fundamental.

> none of the upsides have panned out

Again, what history? What proof? What evidence?

One of the stated upsides relative to monolithic kernels is superior reliability. There are numerous microkernels reliable enough for usage in critical flight systems. None of the standard commercial monolithic kernels are even in the vicinity of that.

Another of the stated upsides is superior security. There are multiple microkernels secure enough to be platforms for systems that need to be secure against state actors. None of the standard commercial monolithic kernels are even in the vicinity of that.

History has proven the opposite of your claims. The concrete evidence is the opposite of your vague unsupported assertions.

▲

frognumber 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> What history? What proof? What evidence?

...

> standard commercial monolithic kernels

Note the path from A to B.

Fully monolithic: Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, zOS.

Mostly monolithic: Windows, MacOS

To get to microkernels, we're reaching for QNX and Minix.

Monolithic kernels won *hard* with good reason.

> critical flight systems

Hard RTOS is a whole different domain of engineering. You're very confused if you think the same principles apply to something which makes sense in a mainstream OS.

▲

Veserv 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You did not claim that microkernels were less commercially successful.

You claimed that microkernels suffer from the same security problems that plague commercial monolithic kernels such as Linux, Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, etc.

You claimed without evidence, and I quote, “none of the upsides have panned out”.

In contrast, microkernels have completely dominated the field, displacing prior monolithic kernel solutions, in domains where reliability and security are not the lowest priority. All you have really supported is that the broader commercial IT landscape continues to prefer easily hacked systems as long as they can save a buck.

▲

frognumber 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You claimed without evidence, or more accurately, bad evidence, confusing RTOS with "reliability and security." And you were somehow confused that security mattered for systems with no network connection.

FYI: For most commercial network equipment (internet backbone and similar), reliability and security are the highest priority. Most of that is Linux, BSD, and friends.

	▲	Veserv 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You claimed without evidence, or more accurately, bad evidence, confusing RTOS with "reliability and security." That sentence is grammatical nonsense. Try again to articulate your point so it is coherent. Furthermore, you have still failed to present any historical examples for literally any of your bullet points or articulate any of the claimed upsides you purport have failed to pan out. In contrast, I have pointed out two frequently claimed upsides, reliability and security, that have demonstrably succeeded to such a degree that prevailing monolithic systems were largely replaced with microkernel systems in domains where reliability and security are highly valued such as aerospace and defense. To the extent that monolithic systems are still used, they were either the legacy option that has not been replaced or chosen where cost reduction is the highest priority, not security and reliability. > FYI: For most commercial network equipment (internet backbone and similar), reliability and security are the highest priority. Frankly, I find it baffling that you think that nuclear weapon systems, military jet fighters (which are network connected by the way), and commercial jetliners (also network connected) have lower reliability and security requirements than commercial networking equipment. And this is ignoring the fact that commercial networking equipment is some of the worst with respect to reliability and security. Cisco, one of the largest vendors in the space, routinely has trivial remote authentication bypasses allowing complete takeover. Here is one from last month: https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-20181. One from earlier this year: https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-20079. Or this one: https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-20127. How about this one: https://app.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2026-20182. Commercial networking equipment security is a joke. Find me literally any technical person who would claim that Cisco can defend against state actors. I will wait.