I appreciate you replying. Since it's you saying it, I'll stop saying it's a microkernel for now. I am curious why people said it so much. Maybe you could help there in even there was a sensible reason for the misinformation.
Did it have nothing of the sort? A microkernel-like component in center of monolith like NT? Microkernel architecture with key stuff in kernel mode for performance like hybrids do? Did you see anything fitting the term in any BeOS release? And how would you classify its architecture?
I'd classify the BeOS kernel as a modular-ish monolithic kernel. I'm a bit fuzzy on some of the more precise details, like the network stack (which they rewrote 3 or 4 times...) but I know that all drivers, at least, ran in ring 0.
Haiku's kernel is also monolithic, although we have a few hybrid tendencies (FUSE, but it's not widely used) and even more modularity than BeOS had, but we are still mostly source-compatible with the BeOS kernel.
I don't know why people say it's a microkernel; people say the same of Haiku, but it's just not the case. Perhaps it's because the dynamic kernel module system is built-in and virtually all kernel modules are stored as shared objects and loaded on startup, vs. Linux's more static approach, at least historically? That's not at all what's meant by the term "monolithic", but popular perception is often wrong...
Alright, that makes sense. I even suspected key drivers were in kernel mode given the performance on its kind of hardware. They might be saying it just because they don't know what a microkernel is. It might also be some new usage based on smaller, more-efficient kernels like used in containers. Who knows.
Did it have nothing of the sort? A microkernel-like component in center of monolith like NT? Microkernel architecture with key stuff in kernel mode for performance like hybrids do? Did you see anything fitting the term in any BeOS release? And how would you classify its architecture?