[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels

From: Niels Möller
Subject: Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels
Date: 21 Jan 2004 16:30:12 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Olivier Galibert <> writes:

> You're leaving in dream land here.  Modern linux, and I have
> first-hand experience with failures there, usually won't crash on
> driver/fs problems if the problem is recoverable.

Drivers for real hardware will require some privileges on the hurd
too, at least as long as it's possible for a bad driver to fry the
hardware it's driving.

But the fs comparison is wrong. A random user on a random linux system
simply won't be running any filesystems of his own. And things that
aren't running will obviously not crash the entire system. Hence no
crashes. So what?

The point of the Hurd is make file systems (as well as some other
things that traditionally live in kernel land) fun and *easy* for
ordinary users to run, install and hack.

If you don't find that interesting, well, then the Hurd is most likely
not for you. You're better off with with a traditional free unix like
GNU/Linux or freebsd. Use your time wisely.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]