Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 239 posts

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#51

Post by bri3d »

anon291 wrote: post #9

A library os to me would typically mean it's aimed at hosting a single user program on bare hardware. I don't see that here, but maybe I'm just confused

It's both; it's aimed at hosting a single user program on another userspace, but also seems to have its own kernel as well?

The "North" part seems to be what I think you'd traditionally think of as a library OS, and then the "South" part seems to be shims to use various userlands and TEEs as the host (rather than the bare hardware in your example).

I'm really confused by the complete lack of documentation and examples, though. I think the "runners" are the closest thing there is.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#53

Post by KPGv2 »

cbondurant wrote: post #18

at first I thought library OS might have meant an OS meant for use at a library. Honestly far less interesting to know I was wrong.

yeah, same here, I was like "wow what an interesting side to their business, a whole operating system intended to serve public and academic libraries!"

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#54

Post by anon291 »

throwoutway wrote: post #50

No mention of starting with a design specification & then tied to formal verification the whole way? It sounds interesting and a step forward (never heard of library Os itll now), but why won't this run into hundreds of the same security bugs that plague Windows if it's not spec'd and verified?

People seem to believe writing things in rust means it's correct.

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#55

Post by RoyTyrell »

TheSilva wrote: post #17
Andrex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ran it through Copilot which gave it the all-clear.

[flagged]

Nope, that's a very fair poke at MS. They've gone so far into AI adoption that it's become absurd.

- They have VPs posting on Linkedin about rewriting existing code using AI and adhering to arbitrary metrics of a x% rewrite and laying off y% of engineers that used to work on it.

- Renaming one of their major flagship product lines (MS Office) to (MS Copilot Apps 365).

- Forcing AI features on users despite not wanting it, and overriding OS configuration that should turn it off.

- Executives publicly shaming the general public for not wanting "all the AI all the time".

Re: Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

#58

Post by RoyTyrell »

portly wrote: post #38
RoyTyrell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just assume the only thing a human did was name write the initial prompt.

I read this type of (sour) comment more and more on this forum. To me it reads very cynical and I wonder what the author is trying to say with this. Are you perhaps negatively impacted by automatic coding?

Nope, not at all.

I read your comment as ignorant to AI's capabilities and their negative outcomes with relying on vibe coding.

The implication is that MS is forcing AI adoption on users at a point of absurd recklessness, and that they should not be trusted - especially not blindly trusted.

Perhaps the reason you're seeing comments similar to my original comment more frequently is because actual software engineers whom know the capabilities of AI and how much of a bad decision it is to assume it's as good as a competent engineer. Many engineers have had years of experience working with management, whom while have legit concerns about the capabilities of software as they are ultimately responsible for it and the financials, see them turning to vibe coding and relying on it. Non technical folks think software is kinda easy to do, and because LLMs can generate code that it just proves their assumptions.

Post reply on HN