11–20 of 64 posts
Question: under what circumstances would I ever want to use this OS, over Linux or MacOS or Windows?
It’s like asking under what scenarios would you want to drive an ATV through New York. Technically possible, but that’s just not what it was made to do.
Question: under what circumstances would I ever want to use this OS, over Linux or MacOS or Windows?
Under no circumstances, it’s a microkernel for embedded systems. It’s like asking under what scenarios would you want to drive an ATV through New York. Technically possible, but that’s just not what it was made to do.
Linux is truck/SUV of computer world if I can extend your analogy. It doesn't belong to center of big city, but it is here.
Question: under what circumstances would I ever want to use this OS, over Linux or MacOS or Windows?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, pray tell, are “cyberphysical” systems?
https://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+physical+systems Factory equipment, vehicles, drones, power grids, medical robots, HVAC, … the list goes on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+physical+systems Factory equipment, vehicles, drones, power grids, medical robots, HVAC, … the list goes on.
I work in the industry that builds and integrates most of that stuff. We don't use that term. It's marketing woo which is why the other commenter has probably never heard it.
Nah, it's a term used in academia.
Sorry for hijacking this thread but I've tried multiple times to post the announcement of Lions OS weeks ago and it always got shadow deleted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39920624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39933112
Question: under what circumstances would I ever want to use this OS, over Linux or MacOS or Windows?
All circumstances where correctness and security are more important than maximum possible performance, once it's mature enough (which will probably never happen), since it provides a proper and secure architecture.
Well-designed microkernels have been proven to have only a minor impact on performance, afaik. Especially if said kernel is small enough to fit in a cpu's L1 or L2 cache entirely.
With that in mind, I'd say there's few cases left where users would not want to take a minor performance hit, if that gets rid of entire classes of bugs & vulnerabilities.
Reasons this isn't the norm these days are mostly historic. But going forward, a good midpoint would be popular OS kernels like Linux split into smaller components, while providing same user-space APIs. Along the lines of how XFree86 was modularized into a set of Xorg libraries. Maybe L4Linux could be an example? (dunno how modular that is though).
On such a componentized system, components could be shared among multiple 'OS personalities'. Kinda like a multi-VM setup but finer grained with much more shared code, much reduced attack surface for individual components, while maintaining very strong isolation guarantees between components.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the industry that builds and integrates most of that stuff. We don't use that term. It's marketing woo which is why the other commenter has probably never heard it.
> It's marketing woo Nah, it's a term used in academia.