> Except they have vastly different histories (look up IBM's VM) and uses and underlying technologies.
Microkernels over time have also employed vastly different technologies. All the "differences" you note are "intended system design/interaction", which frankly isn't meaningful. For instance:
> By contrast, hypervisors virtualize and emulate hardware at various levels of abstraction. This involves providing some of the same things that microkernels do (eg memory isolation, scheduling), but people interact with hypervisors in very different ways than they interact with microkernels.
Who cares how they interact with it? A microkernel is defined by the sorts of abstractions it provides and the isolation properties those abstractions entail. Hypervisors are effectively less expressive microkernels.
Microkernels over time have also employed vastly different technologies. All the "differences" you note are "intended system design/interaction", which frankly isn't meaningful. For instance:
> By contrast, hypervisors virtualize and emulate hardware at various levels of abstraction. This involves providing some of the same things that microkernels do (eg memory isolation, scheduling), but people interact with hypervisors in very different ways than they interact with microkernels.
Who cares how they interact with it? A microkernel is defined by the sorts of abstractions it provides and the isolation properties those abstractions entail. Hypervisors are effectively less expressive microkernels.