I disagree that it is impossible to emulate any characteristics of running on a microkernel when one is, in fact, running on a monolithic kernel.
I've said again and again microkernel-y microkernel-ish. But every single time I try to build a bridge & explain how it's similar but different, you burn it down. I think you have been poisoned by being too close to the subject matter & lack objective sensibility about the subject, are unable to adequately step back to actually understand. And you don't seem to have any interest in learning or trying to see, which is a crying shame.
I feel like you as a deep practioner/academic of this area should be best able to help explain relationships & similarities, to see connections. But you focus only on making distance & setting things apart. That's just not good enough. It's not sufficient a viewpoint.
Just pick a different fucking word. Why do you want to use the term microkernel?
It’s like insisting that a rock is actually and airplane because they both fly through the air. It’s a pointless redefinition and everyone qualified to talk about things that fly won’t call it an airplane and will be confused about what you’re talking about.
But please refer back to the original comment. rektide said it was "un-monolithic", which it is. A virtual machine is less monolithic than baked-in code.
Softirq is the one who brought up microkernels specifically. Softirq is the one that repeatedly steered the conversation back to monokernel versus microkernel.
If you put words in someone's mouth repeatedly until they start using them, you lose the right to complain that they're using the wrong words!
"Why do you want to use the term microkernel?" is the exact opposite of what happened.
Microkernels are defined by privilege levels. It's not debatable. You wouldn't say that something is true microkernel because it's modular. We could have more interesting discussions about the actual topic if you and the original poster could accept common definitions like any sane technologist.