israel (rambam@bigpond.net.au) on 5/20/06 wrote:
---------------------------
>Tzvetan Mikov (tmikov@gmail.com) on 5/8/06 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>After todays mention of microkernels on Slashdot, I came across this explanation of "hybrid kernels" in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel
>>This is the first time I see something on Wikipedia, which I think is blatantly
>>wrong.
>
>I agree that marketing driven quasi-categories are to be deprecated.
>
>I have corrected the entry and have added a link on that page to this discussion.

I think it would be useful to separate the discussion of the classification of Windows NT as a Hybrid-Kernel and the existence of them as a category.

Most of the quotes you have given as against them existing as a category refer to Windows NT specifically not the general case.

Tzvetan Mikov gave good reasons in a reply to me for why the Hurd should be considered a hybrid.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=66647&threadid=66595&roomid=11


Also the remark:
"For example, the Mac OS X kernel XNU, while based on the Mach 3.0 microkernel, includes code from the BSD kernel in the same address space in order to cut down on the latency incurred by the traditional microkernel design."
Is useful in understanding the "concept". Useful regardless of what anyone really thinks of it.