On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Creighton Hogg wrote:
Okay, but these don't seem to really be design flaws so much as the
inevitable results of age and the need for backwards compatibility. I'm
looking more for technical problems that you would want to see fixed in our
magical UberOS.
I don't think
Creighton Hogg wrote:
(Also, have you noticed that no large Haskell applications exist? It's
very hard to convince people that Haskell is not a toy language when
no large applications exist. Building an entire *OS* with it would
rather satisfy that requirement...!)
Well, I
On 6/18/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
Well, since we're on the subject and it's only the Cafe list, what is
it that you find messy about Linux that you would want to be solved by
some hypothetical Haskell OS?
This is drifting off-topic again, but here
Creighton Hogg wrote:
There are lots of things to like about Linux. It doesn't cost money.
It's fast. It's reliable. It's flexible. It's secure.
Okay, I'm not sure if I'd agree with the reliable secure points. I
mean, relative to what could be done. I'm a rank amateur when it
(someone else's quotes are scattered through here, my mailer lost the
nested quoting)
On Jun 18, 2007, at 16:46 , Creighton Hogg wrote:
There are lots of things to like about Linux. It doesn't cost money.
It's fast. It's reliable. It's flexible. It's secure.
As someone who was involved with
On 6/18/07, Creighton Hogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
There are lots of things to like about Linux. It doesn't cost
money.
It's fast. It's reliable. It's flexible. It's secure.
Okay, I'm not sure if
Well, since we're on the subject and it's only the Cafe list, what is
it that you find messy about Linux that you would want to be solved by
some hypothetical Haskell OS?
The hypothetical Haskell OS, especially if it were targeted toward 64
bit machines, could keep processes from messing
On Jun 18, 2007, at 19:51 , Creighton Hogg wrote:
The hypothetical Haskell OS, especially if it were targeted toward 64
bit machines, could keep processes from messing with each other by way
of language based security, and run them all in a single memory
space. (The first system to do this, I
On 6/19/07, Creighton Hogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I remember seeing an example of this before , but I'm not sure if I
see what language based security Haskell's type system could provide in
protecting address spaces from each other. Normally I've seen capabilities
used so that you can't
On 6/18/07, Thomas Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, Creighton Hogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I remember seeing an example of this before , but I'm not sure if
I
see what language based security Haskell's type system could provide in
protecting address spaces from each other.
Normally I've seen capabilities used so that you can't access
anything you can't name. Can you elaborate a little?
He's saying that the language itself prevents programs from writing
outside their address spaces
Yep. Capabilities are usually not actually unforgeable, they are just
picked
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:36:31AM +0200, Jaap Weel wrote:
Normally I've seen capabilities used so that you can't access
anything you can't name. Can you elaborate a little?
He's saying that the language itself prevents programs from writing
outside their address spaces
Yep.
Every capability system I've seen works like Unix file descriptors. The
kernel assigns capability numbers, and since the numbers are only valid
in one process, and the only valid capability numbers are to
capabilities your have, there is no danger caused by guessing.
You know, when I typed
On 6/18/07, Creighton Hogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
Well, since we're on the subject and it's only the Cafe list, what is
it that you find messy about Linux that you would want to be solved by
some hypothetical
software packages, configuration files, boot scripts and the like are all
managaed in a purely functional way, that is, they are all built by
deterministic functions and they never change after they have been built.,
from http://nix.cs.uu.nl/nixos/index.html
One thing microsoft has being
15 matches
Mail list logo
