In the end, the answer is always to pick the right tool for the job. Comparing Minix and Linux is about as meaningful as comparing a phillips screwdriver with a flathead. They're used for different purposes.
I agree with your last sentence though.
If reliability is that much of a concern, why isn't the system being designed in a way that makes the distinction irrelevant?
about as meaningful as comparing a phillips screwdriver with a flathead. They're used for different purposes.
Is this just that they work with different kinds of screws, or are there cases where it's actually preferable to use a flathead screw+screwdriver instead of Phillips (or Robertson, which for some reason we don't have around here)?
This means that in areas where performance is paramount, the system stability benefits of a microkernel design just isn't worth the loss in speed. In other areas it might be, but as the current OS landscape shows it's not in huge demand. Part of this is obviously that monolithic/hybrid kernels really aren't that prone to crashing (bugs get fixed), which means that in practice these kernel designs offers BOTH performance and stability.
...as meaningful as comparing a phillips screwdriver with a flathead. They're used for different purposes.
is perhaps not the best analogy. They are both for turning screws, and some people do, in fact, have strong opinions on which is better.
Unless you meant to say that a phillips is for turning screws and a flathead is for prying stuff open. :-D
There are at least a few microkernel implementations beside Minix that are in use/more or less stable/shows some viability. (E.g. QNX, L4 family and to some extent EROS family)
They have received nowhere as much attention as something like Linux. So the usability is not really up there.
The only useful thing you can run on L4 is Linux, but that's pointless.
EROS/CapROS/Coyotos never had any useful userspace.