No, modularity doesn't require this kind of inconsistency. Why would it?
find, dd, tar and cp all taking their command line options in different ways doesn't add to modularity. If they were developed by the same people following the same standards they would be more consistent but no less modular.
bash's [[ built-in and /usr/bin/[ are different in some obvious and some dangerously subtle ways. Is that because of modularity? Not really, traditional Unix didn't have [[ with its inconsistencies. It's a result of trying to create featureful software that's backward-compatible with Unix. It happened because of a move away from modularity that's impossible to complete, but with just traditional Unix or just the GNU attitude to software design the inconsistency wouldn't be there.
It might be that there's some sort of inconsistency I missed that's inevitably caused by modularity, but it isn't the sort of inconsistency we were talking about.
X and Wayland
Minix is widely used. Every system with Intel ME 11 is running it.
The only popular microkernel is made by a jew and used to enslave humanity.
Fixed. Don't forget the microkernel used on all ARM proccessors for (((kikezone))).
L4 derivatives are used a lot, m8. In smartphones for example. en.wikipedia.org
What do Windows, OSX, Fuchsia, and the Linux Foundation's Zephyr all have in common? Give up? Their kernels are all hybrids. It's not common to have a pure micro or monolithic kernel.
L4 is bretty gool. I'm working on a toy microkernel that is basically an L4 ripoff.
Yeah, they are hybrids, not microkernels. My comment was about the "purity" of the theory vs something practical.
They are hybrid as in part micro part monlithic kernel.
They even mention it specifically. I'm sure it was easier for Linus to make Linux monolithic in the beginning. It doesn't mean microkernels are a bad idea because Linux isn't one.