2009/9/18 Alan Grimes <[email protected]>: > I'm fascinated to read that "L4 was rejected for hurd." I mean Jezus god > damned motherfucking christ. Who could possibly reject the world's best > publicly available kernel? Seriously, I am dying to read what the asshat > ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass-hat ) who made such > a decision could possibly say for itself. > > Okay, now that I've enjoyed my daily screed against unix and all of its > flavors, what do I like?, well I'll tell you. I want to see what I call > a "system oriented operating system". A system where no program is any > weaker than the kernel. -- Ie, can provide an internal operating > environment. I wrote a paper on it back in 2001. However I am far too > lame to get the project going myself, mainly because I couldn't find the > documentation I needed back when I had the time and energy to work on > such a project. =(( > > If you want a more buzzwordy description of essentially the same basic > idea, read: http://www.ok-labs.com/solutions/secure-hypercell-technology
While it has always been easy for software on top of L4 to provide an equivalent operating environment, it was not at the time possible to /secure/ that operating environment (outside of implementing some form of interpreter that validates all operations). This was why there was so much discussion on securing L4 or choosing a new kernel. This may not be true today, but this is a very recent development. Do you think it is worth throwing away all the current work (on an L4 derived kernel no less) ? For what benefit? Who is going to do the work of porting the existing resource accounting code? William Leslie
