Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
GNU virtual private Ethernet
They are the people that matter at this point in time.
New GNU Hurd, Mach, and MIG releases
Posted Sep 29, 2013 15:12 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Posted Sep 29, 2013 17:31 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
Posted Sep 30, 2013 4:58 UTC (Mon) by Kluge (guest, #2881)
Posted Sep 30, 2013 6:42 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Posted Sep 30, 2013 15:57 UTC (Mon) by Kluge (guest, #2881)
Sure. My point was that as there are a number of FOSS monolithic kernels out there, anyone preferring to work on HURD will be a microkernel enthusiast. But HURD isn't the only FOSS microkernel-based OS out there, so there is presumably competition for those developers.
Posted Sep 29, 2013 15:19 UTC (Sun) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Sep 29, 2013 20:26 UTC (Sun) by rgmoore (subscriber, #75)
I don't think user-facing software is the critical part. It needs a group of developers who are intending to use it for serious, real-world applications. Those applications can be user-facing, server based, embedded, or whatever, but they have to be something people depend on. Having users who depend on it will give a committed developer base. Without that, it's just a hobbyist system that has people working on it because it's cool, and they'll be tempted to jump to something else that appears cooler.
Posted Sep 30, 2013 20:57 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
What is needed to move beyond 'nitch hobbyist' to solve a unique problem or solve a problem in a superior way to a existing solution and then convincing people that their lives will be easier if they use it.
So far 'Microkernels' have been long on promises, short on results. Promises of security and stability improvements have never materialized while performance and scalability remains a perennial problem. Hence why so far they remain hobbyist toys. I think that even at this point the academics have moved on.
Posted Sep 30, 2013 22:29 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Posted Oct 1, 2013 22:15 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
Micro kernels, virtualization, zones, containers,... we are all spoilt with choice.
Posted Oct 1, 2013 9:10 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Posted Oct 1, 2013 14:12 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Oct 1, 2013 16:47 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
I think the problem with microkernels is that nowadays the same benefits can be achieved with memory-safe programming languages.
Posted Oct 1, 2013 21:52 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Posted Oct 1, 2013 23:44 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
PHP is "safer" than C in the same regards. Would you also argue that PHP programs tend to be safer and have fewer bugs than C programs?
I'm not at all sure that Java programs tend to be safer than C programs in 2013. Buffer overflows and stack smashing are pre-eminent in the C world precisely because many other classes of exploitable bugs are less prevalent, for many different reasons--engineer experience, typical usages, etc. C also tends to get more CVE reports precisely because historically has predominated in large, widely used programs that are under the microscope.
I'm not saying that Java programs are less secure. Maybe they're more secure. But the type of memory corruption possible with C is but one factor, and the potential for the same kind of corruption exists in all languages when executed on commodity hardware. And advances in mitigation techniques has narrowed the gap substantially in terms of the susceptibility to exploitable memory corruption.
Posted Oct 1, 2013 23:45 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
Posted Oct 2, 2013 1:00 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds