> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Marcus Brinkmann > <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is not true, at least for me. Confinement was a big discussion (for > political reasons), but it didn't affect my kernel choices (or lack thereof) > at all. It did influence my ideas for overall system design. After reading all archives of this month, I came to certain point but now your words have confused me. This is what Jonathan Shapiro said: -------------------------------------------------------------- It is true that the Coyotos *system* considers encapsulation of data to be a fundamental requirement. If you cannot tell where data can go, you cannot determine the scope and consequences of errors. For this reason, the Coyotos *system* constructs confined subsystems as a default. However, the Coyotos *kernel* does not embed this assumption. It is perfectly possible to build other *systems* on top of the Coyotos *kernel*. Given that l4-hurd is trying to be something very different from Coyotos, it was never really my expectation that l4-hurd would end up using much of the Coyotos *system*. The Coyotos kernel remains a fairly high-performance alternative, I am not aware of any l4-hurd goal that it fails to support, and I am not aware of any l4-hurd anti-goal that it imposes. So if Coyotos was abandoned for the reasons you suggest, then it was abandoned for the wrong reasons. ORIGIN: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2009-09/msg00119.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I wonder why Viengoos was created as an alternative if Coyotos was fine. -- http://uttre.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/the-lost-love-of-mine/
