Re: [SC-L] Andy Tanenbaum on Linux's origins and security
En un mensaje anterior, Kenneth R. van Wyk escribió:
Andy Tanenbaum, the author of the MINIX operating system, recently posted an
opinion piece on the origins of Linux. It's a fascinating albeit somewhat
lengthy read -- see http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ for the full text.
People interested might also like to read:
http://www.kde.org/history/linux_is_obsolete.php
An interesting discussion mainly between Andy Tanenbaum, a well known Professor
of Computer Science at the Free University of Amsterdam and Linus Torvalds
fast is to make it small. Fight Features.
I find the fight features ideas particulary interesting, but have so far not
found a good and general way of {t,pr}eaching that to customers or stakeholders.
Any experience there?
Regards, Fernando.
Re: [SC-L] Andy Tanenbaum on Linux's origins and security
At the very end of the document, [Andy Tanenbaum] talks about the security of a microkernel system like (his own) MINIX vs. that of a monolithic kernel like Linux. He writes, With all the security problems Windows has now, it is increasingly obvious to everyone that tiny microkernels, like that of MINIX, are a better base for operating systems than huge monolithic systems. This is an amazing leap of illogic. I see no particular reason to ascribe _any_ of Windows' insecurity to its monolithic architecture (as opposed to, say, Microsoft's duty to its shareholders to cut quality, and therefore costs, as far as is not inconsistent with the result still selling). [A.T. writes further:] As I did 20 years ago, I still fervently believe that the only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. Indeed. And still with no bearing on whether the system putatively containing those features is designed microkernel or monolithic. In view of this, comparing against Linux (a kitchen-sink system if I ever saw one) is unfair; he should be comparing against one of the BSDs, if he wants an open-source monolithic Unix variant. There _are_ security benefits to microkernel designs, it's true, but there are also security benefits to monolithic designs, and which outweighs the other is a decision each system's architect must make - it certainly isn't a slam-dunk either way, to me. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
[SC-L] Andy Tanenbaum on Linux's origins and security
Andy Tanenbaum, the author of the MINIX operating system, recently posted an opinion piece on the origins of Linux. It's a fascinating albeit somewhat lengthy read -- see http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ for the full text. At the very end of the document, he talks about the security of a microkernel system like (his own) MINIX vs. that of a monolithic kernel like Linux. He writes, With all the security problems Windows has now, it is increasingly obvious to everyone that tiny microkernels, like that of MINIX, are a better base for operating systems than huge monolithic systems. Linux has been the victim of fewer attacks than Windows because (1) it actually is more secure, but also (2) most attackers think hitting Windows offers a bigger bang for the buck so Windows simply gets attacked more. As I did 20 years ago, I still fervently believe that the only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. Cheers, Ken -- KRvW Associates, LLC http://www.KRvW.com
