41–46 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monolithic kernels don't "focus on correctness". Some people might when writing one, plan 9 for example. But plenty don't, like linux as the most obvious example.
Interestingly, important parts of the Linux kernel are proven correct (e.g. the scheduler). But yeah...not the whole thing.
As time goes on GNU HURD becomes sadder and sadder :/ They can't even seem to be consistently settled on their basics like what micro kernel they are using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd#Other_microkernels In the 2000s they experimented with 3 other micro kernels, all of which went "no where". Over half a decade spending their limited dev resources on work that ultimately went no where since they are still appare…
The Hurd authors might find your part-time projects just as sad and pathetic as you find theirs. There's not much I can say beyond that, since you've based your judgement on vague and wishy-washy concepts like going somewhere, being "vaguely competitive", and keeping up. It's no business of yours to criticize the direction of a project you have no involvement or stake in, especially when you can't articulate what dir…
Direction I'd prefer? Working on modern hardware and taking full advantage of it! Was that not clear? That's the whole point. They spend all their time on on designing and redesigning archetecture and their software is now getting less relevant on real hardware. Mostly only makes sense now to run as a VM. Which is probably not what they want for the OS that is supposed to replace Linux....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that microkernels aren't just trying to achieve modularity - they also take a stab at robustness by failure recovery. This is IMO doomed to fail - you are much better off trying to achieve robustness by correctness. Monolithic kernels focus more on correctness and therefore progress much faster.
Monolithic kernels don't "focus on correctness". Some people might when writing one, plan 9 for example. But plenty don't, like linux as the most obvious example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monolithic kernels don't "focus on correctness". Some people might when writing one, plan 9 for example. But plenty don't, like linux as the most obvious example.
What I mean is that they try to achieve stability by eliminating bugs, not by doing damage control. Proactive vs reactive.
As time goes on GNU HURD becomes sadder and sadder :/ They can't even seem to be consistently settled on their basics like what micro kernel they are using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd#Other_microkernels In the 2000s they experimented with 3 other micro kernels, all of which went "no where". Over half a decade spending their limited dev resources on work that ultimately went no where since they are still appare…
The Hurd authors might find your part-time projects just as sad and pathetic as you find theirs. There's not much I can say beyond that, since you've based your judgement on vague and wishy-washy concepts like going somewhere, being "vaguely competitive", and keeping up. It's no business of yours to criticize the direction of a project you have no involvement or stake in, especially when you can't articulate what dir…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, user space. It will be restarted. (Note that I may lie to you about /, it's somewhat special and I don't remember details). Edit: oh, and when it crashes it will get handled by crash server (you guessed it, user-space program) which can kill/suspend/coredump it. You can choose even by env variable!
What happens if you crash the crash server?