This debate about monolithic vs. micro-kernels has been had many times. Maybe this time the resolution is different, who knows. But FWIW Linux didn't reach its success because someone made a feature comparison between it and what else was out there in a spreadsheet and somehow discovered how Linux was so much better. Instead, Linux won (and continues to win) because it's the Rocky Balboa of operating systems. It may loose the first round, but it always come back. And the reason for that is that Linux's biggest feature isn't necessarily technical. Rather, it's the community of people around it, the fact that it can tolerate a healthy dose of disagreement and infighting before eventually finding and settling on whatever best solution solves the next immediate problem, not some far-into-future idealistic goal. The downside to that development model is that radical changes take several iterations/years while in a centrally-managed OS development model can be shoved in "atomically" -- ex: real-time, tracing, etc. You can devise many a great OSes on paper and even implement them. Bootstrapping an entire ecosystem and, effectively, institutionalize a completely open and nimble development model such as that of the Linux kernel is a whole other story.