[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels
From: |
Olivier Galibert |
Subject: |
Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:28:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
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 http://lufs.sourceforge.net/ 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]?
OG.
[1] Very nice, but also lacking a working security model.
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, (continued)
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Niels Möller, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels,
Olivier Galibert <=
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Niels Möller, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Marcus Brinkmann, 2004/01/27
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/27
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Niels Möller, 2004/01/27
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Marcus Brinkmann, 2004/01/22
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Niels Möller, 2004/01/22
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/01/22
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Marcus Brinkmann, 2004/01/23
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Budi Rahardjo, 2004/01/22