You seem to forget that one of the reasons the Hurd has been next-to-dead for a number of years is that even its developers and original designers seem convinced that it has a number of "unfixable" bugs. More precisely, "unfixable" here means: "not fixable on the current Hurd-on-Mach implementation".
Several things wrong there, none of the `bugs' in the Hurd on Mach are unfixable (even by your definition of unfixable). The original designers (i.e. Thomas and Roland) actually thought that Mach was a bad choice to start with. Nor has the Hurd been next-to-dead for a number of years, I really have no idea where people get that idea from. Even as a simple "lurker", I now know those flaws too well to feel comfortable advocating the use of the Hurd on Mach. Moreover, some of these deficiencies (e.g. the passive translator vulnerability) Once gain those are not vulnerabilites in passive translators, but how a chroot works. Now I'm wondering if the Hurdish chroot (fakeroot) allows for this... Really, I don't think the rationale for switching to L4 was satisfying people's "security paranoia": it was about fixing some of those "unfixable" issues. Switching from Mach to L4 is all good and well, switching from Mach to L4 to L4.sec to Coyotos to FOO and writting a couple thousand lines of code for each switch is not. And that is exactly how it looks, and it will delay the Hurd for a number of years. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
