[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: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:24:37 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:28:10PM +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:30:12PM +0100, Niels Möller wrote:
> > 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.
> But then, you have projects like which
> seem to give you the equivalent under Linux.  It seems to me the main
> reason why something like that isn't standard in Linux or BSD kernels
> is the lack of a decent security model for them.


> What are these other things, apart from the passive translators[1]?
> [1] Very nice, but also lacking a working security model.

We have a working security model, thank-you-very-much (note: the current
implementation has its own flaws, but we know the fix to all known-flaws).
If you have any particular criticism, please say it out loud.


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd

reply via email to

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