41–50 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you wish, I am no longer going to debate the pedantic meaning of pure microkernel ideology. I rather be happy for the improvements in the long term roadmap and overall outcome for the eco-system.
It’s not about pedantry; whatever rules you define for a micro kernel it shouldn’t be rules for thee but not for me
What you call a kernel like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you wish, I am no longer going to debate the pedantic meaning of pure microkernel ideology. I rather be happy for the improvements in the long term roadmap and overall outcome for the eco-system.
> As you wish, I am no longer going to debate the pedantic meaning of pure microkernel ideology. This isn't pedantic, nor is it ideology. If you're acquiescing, do it graciously and please refrain from name calling.
From all purposes from a third party driver writer persona, the only path forward are user space drivers.
What you call a kernel like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you wish, I am no longer going to debate the pedantic meaning of pure microkernel ideology. I rather be happy for the improvements in the long term roadmap and overall outcome for the eco-system.
"Pedantic"? If you just consider disallowing 3rd party modules to be a "microkernel" all while the kernel itself still loads most if not all (approved) drivers such as PCI bus, storage devices or filesystems in the same address space, then _all_ current major operating systems are "microkernels".
What you call a kernel like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As you wish, I am no longer going to debate the pedantic meaning of pure microkernel ideology. This isn't pedantic, nor is it ideology. If you're acquiescing, do it graciously and please refrain from name calling.
What a sensible world we live on nowadays, that wasn't name calling in any sense. From all purposes from a third party driver writer persona, the only path forward are user space drivers. What you call a kernel like that?
This is basically calling me silly, just as you were calling the previous person ideological and a pedant. If you cut out this commentary that would be great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Pedantic"? If you just consider disallowing 3rd party modules to be a "microkernel" all while the kernel itself still loads most if not all (approved) drivers such as PCI bus, storage devices or filesystems in the same address space, then _all_ current major operating systems are "microkernels".
From all pratical purposes for a third party driver writer persona, the only path forward are user space drivers. What you call a kernel like that?
systemextensionsctl list yields 0 extensions on my system. Are there any users of these extensions at this point? It does seem a bit weird that installing these extensions supposedly doesn't require any user consent, even though stuff like screen recording or folder access does.
more common in enterprise environment, but vmware fusion, global protect, and lulu/little snitch come to mind from my experience. Big Sur still technically supports Kernel Extensions, and companies will wait until the last minute before giving in.
I have VMware fusion running (latest version), so maybe they've finished the transition?
This article does a good job of explaining how kernel extensions worked under Intel and how they will work under M1, and the blessed replacement for kernel extensions by Apple under M1. What it's missing, and what I assume everyone's questions is: Are the capabilities of Apple's user-level APIs sufficient to replace most legitimate uses of kernel extensions?
"blessed" replacement Why did you use the word Blessed? I'm curious what made your brain choose that word instead of something neutral. Reminds me of "Walled garden" marketing speak instead of "Walled Prison". Edit- is there some sensitive nerve I hit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are the capabilities of Apple's user-level APIs sufficient to replace most legitimate uses of kernel extensions? From what I remember reading from some macOS Application Firewall makers, no. (And that's ofcourse, intentional.) While it is true that poorly coded Kernel extensions can make an OS unstable, this is just another example of Apple taking away more control from its users and further crippling macOS to make…
Well, I'm glad to see even the cynics can't find an evil motive here, and has to resort to just assuming stupidity. That, however, isn't easy to do, considering Apple has a rather impressive track record of creating products people enjoy and buy. And to jump two replies ahead: them trying to make it "easy" and "save" doesn't imply their users are idiots. Quite a few developers and scientists use Macs, and the lawyers…
I don’t like the way this is going.
I hope this won't effect tools like "Karabiner Elements"[1]? It's an essential tool I use to re-program the whole keyboard. [1] https://karabiner-elements.pqrs.org/