Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Mike C.]

>
> > I was recently reading an article that claimed Linux is insecure, because
> > of it's monolithic kernel codebase:
> >
> https://threatpost.com/researchers-blame-monolithic-linux-code-base-for-critical-vulnerabilities/136785/
>
> I read the article. The big takeaways for me are:

1. "They found that 96 percent of critical Linux compromises would no
longer be critical with a microkernel-based design, 40 percent would be
completely eliminated by an OS based on a verified microkernel and 29
percent would be gone even with an unverified microkernel."

2. "security researchers noted that embracing microkernels as a panacea
doesn’t take into account other challenges.'

“The usage of limited function OS and/or distributed component OS is fine,
but this introduces new risks and expands the attack surface that
complicates security monitoring and association of various moving parts
that become unmanageable for humans,” Joseph Kucic, chief security officer
at Cavirin, told Threatpost.

“While artificial intelligence/machine learning can aid in this security
validation process, I expect hackers will have the advantage for 12 to 24
months if the paradigm is changed for OSes.
3. "He also pointed out that new hacks are focusing on runtime and memory
exploits – and that these will see limited benefit from the proposed
changes."

4. "While one may reduce attack surface of a monolithic OS, one increases
complexity and security validation requirements for additional
micro-services.”

From which I draw the following conclusions.

1. Microkernel architecture by design is more secure than monolithic OSs
such as MS WIn, Linux, MAC OS.

2. Microkernel architecture has flaws, challenges  and isn't more secure
against all attack vectors such as runtine and memory exploits.

This comes down to the classic the "the evil you know is better than the
evil you don't".

The best thing about Linux is that it's not a one size fits all OS. If
security is of paramount concern for a user or user base there is a
plethora of ways to reduce the attach surface of the computing environment
and/or data.

As someone mentioned computers are about getting work done. This is what
most developers and users have been thinking about and doing since the
first computer.

IT security is still a relatively new thing on the computer time line and
in most cases it's still an afterthought. Microkernel architecture wasn't
created to be secure.

" Microkernels were meant as a response to changes in the computer world,
and to several challenges adapting existing "mono-kernels
" to these new systems. New
device drivers, protocol stacks, file systems and other low-level systems
were being developed all the time. This code was normally located in the
monolithic kernel, and thus required considerable work and careful code
management to work on. Microkernels were developed with the idea that all
of these services would be implemented as user-space programs, like any
other, allowing them to be worked on monolithically and started and stopped
like any other program. This would not only allow these services to be more
easily worked on, but also separated the kernel code to allow it to be
finely tuned without worrying about unintended side effects. Moreover, it
would allow entirely new operating systems to be "built up" on a common
core, aiding OS research."

It just so happens that overtime those ideas lead to a more secure OS
design. And now, 3rd generation microkernels are "characterised by a
security-oriented API with resource access controlled by capabilities
, virtualization
 as
a first-class concern, novel approaches to kernel resource management,[32]
 and
a design goal of suitability for formal analysis
, besides the usual goal of
high performance. Examples are Coyotos
,
seL4
,
Nova,[33] [34]

 Redox and
Fiasco.OC.[33] 
[35]


In the case of seL4, complete formal verification of the implementation has
been achieved,[31]

i.e.
a mathematical proof that the kernel's implementation is consistent with
its formal specification. This provides a guarantee that the properties
proved about the API actually hold for the real kernel, a degree of

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Russell Senior]

Google "worse is better" for a famous paper on the general subject.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 12:51 Tomas Kuchta 
wrote:

> I would google up Andrew Tanenbaum versus monolithic kernel and look back
> at the history of this debate. It goes back to 90s - birth of Linux.
>
> I am not going to judge it theoretically on a principle. Just observing the
> real world as it currently is - microkernel security currently comes
> primarily from the fact that it cannot do much and it is not used outside
> SW research and niche such as "secure" IME (remember that last year).
>
> The beauty of open source, in my opinion, is diversity and agiliy. So,
> there is place for micro kernel OS.
>
> I am not quite sure that minix is the future direction thought. It has not
> been for the last 30+ years.
>
> .
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 10:30 AM Louis Kowolowski 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tyrell Jentink  wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > I guess I'm concerned that there isn't enough competition to keep the
> > > internet safe. I'm concerned that capitalism, and the acceptance of
> work
> > > flows that "Technically work, and are cheap enough to not want better"
> is
> > > the enemy at hand...
> > > ...
> >
> > I'm a little unclear how capitalism is related here. If we didn't use it,
> > what would we use that would somehow mandate that people use sufficiently
> > diverse things to maintain a notion of safety?
> >
> > We have lots of browsers, but they all have to interoperate to be
> > relevant. Enter web assembly, the next way to deliver malware to every
> > browser.
> >
> > --
> > Louis Kowolowskilou...@cryptomonkeys.org
> > Cryptomonkeys:
> > http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/
> >
> > Making life more interesting for people since 1977
> >
> > ___
> > PLUG mailing list
> > PLUG@pdxlinux.org
> > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
> >
> ___
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG@pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Tomas Kuchta]

I would google up Andrew Tanenbaum versus monolithic kernel and look back
at the history of this debate. It goes back to 90s - birth of Linux.

I am not going to judge it theoretically on a principle. Just observing the
real world as it currently is - microkernel security currently comes
primarily from the fact that it cannot do much and it is not used outside
SW research and niche such as "secure" IME (remember that last year).

The beauty of open source, in my opinion, is diversity and agiliy. So,
there is place for micro kernel OS.

I am not quite sure that minix is the future direction thought. It has not
been for the last 30+ years.

.

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 10:30 AM Louis Kowolowski 
wrote:

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tyrell Jentink  wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > I guess I'm concerned that there isn't enough competition to keep the
> > internet safe. I'm concerned that capitalism, and the acceptance of work
> > flows that "Technically work, and are cheap enough to not want better" is
> > the enemy at hand...
> > ...
>
> I'm a little unclear how capitalism is related here. If we didn't use it,
> what would we use that would somehow mandate that people use sufficiently
> diverse things to maintain a notion of safety?
>
> We have lots of browsers, but they all have to interoperate to be
> relevant. Enter web assembly, the next way to deliver malware to every
> browser.
>
> --
> Louis Kowolowskilou...@cryptomonkeys.org
> Cryptomonkeys:
> http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/
>
> Making life more interesting for people since 1977
>
> ___
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG@pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Robert Citek]

Just a minor nit:


Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection,
"survival of the fit enough" is more accurate.


https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

Regards,
- Robert


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tyrell Jentink  wrote:

> Fair enough; I read a quote a few days ago, but can't find it again to
> properly cite... It was in reference to If Plan 9 Is Truly Better, Why
> Linux? And it was to the effect of "The biggest risk to Great software is
> Good Enough software," and that may be true...
>
> But getting "Stuck" on 1960s technology isn't "Progress" either... And at
> what point should the world suck it up, and swallow the cost of upgrading
> For The Greater Good?
>
> I also believe in competition, natural selection, and survival of the
> fittest... 15 years ago, when I was first getting into Linux, I argued that
> a heterogeneous population of hardware and software will encourage the
> hurd-immunity of the whole  network... I argued that me, personally using
> Linux actually made the whole internet safer, as a particular threat is
> unlikely  to be effective against me,  AND the Windows Users, AND the Mac
> OS users, etc. The "Diversity" was a good thing. And I THINK the researcher
> in the original security article was making a similar point: By encouraging
> competition among similar but not identical implimentations,  some will be
> "Better" than others in certain ways, worse in others; Vulnerable to some
> attacks, immune to others... But to hide it all away in the kernel prevents
> competition... Interferes with the "Many Eyes" principle that Open Source
> argues in favor of.
>
> I guess I'm concerned that there isn't enough competition to keep the
> internet safe. I'm concerned that capitalism, and the acceptance of work
> flows that "Technically work, and are cheap enough to not want better" is
> the enemy at hand...
> ___
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG@pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Louis Kowolowski]

On Sep 13, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tyrell Jentink  wrote:
> 
> ...
> I guess I'm concerned that there isn't enough competition to keep the
> internet safe. I'm concerned that capitalism, and the acceptance of work
> flows that "Technically work, and are cheap enough to not want better" is
> the enemy at hand...
> ...

I'm a little unclear how capitalism is related here. If we didn't use it, what 
would we use that would somehow mandate that people use sufficiently diverse 
things to maintain a notion of safety?

We have lots of browsers, but they all have to interoperate to be relevant. 
Enter web assembly, the next way to deliver malware to every browser.

--
Louis Kowolowskilou...@cryptomonkeys.org
Cryptomonkeys:   http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/

Making life more interesting for people since 1977

___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Paul Heinlein]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Tyrell Jentink wrote:

Fair enough; I read a quote a few days ago, but can't find it again 
to properly cite... It was in reference to If Plan 9 Is Truly 
Better, Why Linux? And it was to the effect of "The biggest risk to 
Great software is Good Enough software," and that may be true...


Answer me this: who gets to define "great" in this context?

Chances are you'll find yourself vacillating between egocentrism (I or 
my close acquaintances), elitism (experts I trust), or populism (the 
market or broader society).


Think carefully before you make your choice.

--
Paul Heinlein
heinl...@madboa.com
45°38' N, 122°6' W___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Rich Shepard]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Tyrell Jentink wrote:


I'm a young'n; I don't remember 4.4BSD or Research UNIX... I also come to
Linux from an IT background, not a Computer Science background, and maybe
I lack a certain historical perspective as a consequence.


Tyrell,

  You're forgiven by us silverbacks.


I was recently reading an article that claimed Linux is insecure, because
of it's monolithic kernel codebase:
https://threatpost.com/researchers-blame-monolithic-linux-code-base-for-critical-vulnerabilities/136785/


  I've not read the above, but many distributions (including Slackware) use
modules so you're not loading everything even when some are not needed.
Slackware has two kernel versions: generic and huge. The huge kernel has
everything, including the kitchen sink, that's loaded when booted. The
generic kernels require an initrd (a small initial RAM disk that gets the
system started), then only the necessary kernels are loaded.

  Germane to security, other than potential vulnerabilities which have been
patched prior to exploitation, only the recent bind goof exposed potential
insecurity.

  Not only linux, but the *BSDs and the backbones of the Internet are open
source software. That's why they are highly secure: there are always folks
(including CS100 students) poking and trying to make it crash (as they did
with the IBM S/360 at the U. of Illinois in the early 1970s).

  Hope this helps reassure you.

Rich
___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Louis Kowolowski]

I think what may be overlooked here is that the entire premise is that a 
microkernel architecture is more secure because it (may) not suffer from the 
same problems that a monolithic kernel does. This may be true. What it doesn't 
address is what flaws a microkernel architecture has that a monolithic kernel 
does not. The notion that 1 architecture is 100% superior seems...unlikely. To 
me, this means it is less a question of which is better (since we're not 
actually comparing apples to apples) and which is easier to get work done with 
(because this is afterall, the point. If we can't get work done with it, it 
doesn't matter how good it is, its terrible). From this perspective, you can 
pick your poison, get used to it, and go back to getting work done. If your 
goal is academic research, 

In terms of practical, I not aware of a microkernel architecture that is in 
broad use through the industry*, which means that, in terms of security, its 
effectively untested. Until you get thousands of people poking at something, 
you won't get an accurate representation of the security of a thing. Take a 
look at the CVE reports (mitre.org) for various popular platforms. They're 
pretty similar in terms of bug counts per year for at least the last 6yrs. Open 
Source, Closed Source doesn't have a lot of impact.


* Yes, I know that OS X (Mac OS) is based on Mach Microkernel, but its more of 
a hybrid between the 2 architectures, so any security analysis comparisons to 
either are somewhat complicated. History/Reference/Description that is 11yrs 
old now, and of course some of it has changed. 
https://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/attachments/986_inside_the_mac_osx_kernel.pdf

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Tyrell Jentink  wrote:
> 
> I'm a young'n; I don't remember 4.4BSD or Research UNIX... I also come to
> Linux from an IT background, not a Computer Science background, and maybe I
> lack a certain historical perspective as a consequence.
> 
> I was recently reading an article that claimed Linux is insecure, because
> of it's monolithic kernel codebase:
> https://threatpost.com/researchers-blame-monolithic-linux-code-base-for-critical-vulnerabilities/136785/
> 
> 
> That lead me down a trail of research on Wikipedia, trying to figure out
> what they meant by that...  And I discovered a number of interesting things:
> 
> First, Many are likening it to a modern incarnation of the
> Tanenbaun-Torvalds debates of the early '90s, which are also fascinating
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate
> 
> But also, UNIX itself is old hat: Research Unix was a 1960s and 70's
> approach to operating mainframes... By the 80's, Bell Labs had grown bored,
> and wanted to start playing with distributed systems on commodity PCs, and
> they started a new project, Plan 9 From Bell Labs (
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs); They doubled down
> on the "Everything is a file, Programs should be small, and APIs should be
> text based" philosophies... And they created the 9P2000 file sharing
> protocol to share all of these "All resources are files" resources with
> other computers... They also ignored existing standards, and had no
> patience for existing software... It's still around, in the form of a
> forked project called 9FRONT, http://9front.org. Fair warning: If you think
> *BSD people are rude, these guys are worse in that they are also big fans
> of sarcasm and irony... Rumor has it that new users regularly leave the IRC
> crying...
> 
> 9P2000 is still around, too, as the V9FS on Linux and many Unix like
> operating systems, and growing popular in VM communities,
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P_(protocol)
> 
> Then Bell Labs grew bored again... And in the 90's, built Inferno (
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system) ), a system
> built from lessons learned on Plan 9 From Bell Labs, but featuring a VM not
> unlike Java; In fact, it can recompile Java bytecode to run natively.
> Inferno is still around, developed by a third party:
> http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/
> 
> Both Plan 9 From Bell Labs and Inferno featured Microkernel technologies...
> And in the '90s, Computer Science nerds grew obsessed over microkernels,
> and born was the L4 microkernel architecture (
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family); They never say so,
> but one can see many design similarities between all of the microkernels
> and the earlier Plan 9/Inferno experiments.
> 
> Where many like to argue that "Linux isn't an OS without GNU,"
> microkernels are even less an OS than Linux... in that it doesn't even
> directly manage user rights or block devices or network routing... All of
> that gets built as servers running in userspace, and THIS is the security
> the original article was citing: By getting all that complicated and
> potentially buggy software out of the kernel, the kernel can then protect
> from the faulty code, and UNIX like operating systems can be 

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Tyrell Jentink]

Fair enough; I read a quote a few days ago, but can't find it again to
properly cite... It was in reference to If Plan 9 Is Truly Better, Why
Linux? And it was to the effect of "The biggest risk to Great software is
Good Enough software," and that may be true...

But getting "Stuck" on 1960s technology isn't "Progress" either... And at
what point should the world suck it up, and swallow the cost of upgrading
For The Greater Good?

I also believe in competition, natural selection, and survival of the
fittest... 15 years ago, when I was first getting into Linux, I argued that
a heterogeneous population of hardware and software will encourage the
hurd-immunity of the whole  network... I argued that me, personally using
Linux actually made the whole internet safer, as a particular threat is
unlikely  to be effective against me,  AND the Windows Users, AND the Mac
OS users, etc. The "Diversity" was a good thing. And I THINK the researcher
in the original security article was making a similar point: By encouraging
competition among similar but not identical implimentations,  some will be
"Better" than others in certain ways, worse in others; Vulnerable to some
attacks, immune to others... But to hide it all away in the kernel prevents
competition... Interferes with the "Many Eyes" principle that Open Source
argues in favor of.

I guess I'm concerned that there isn't enough competition to keep the
internet safe. I'm concerned that capitalism, and the acceptance of work
flows that "Technically work, and are cheap enough to not want better" is
the enemy at hand...
___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Re: [PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Paul Heinlein]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Tyrell Jentink wrote:

I'm a young'n; I don't remember 4.4BSD or Research UNIX... I also 
come to Linux from an IT background, not a Computer Science 
background, and maybe I lack a certain historical perspective as a 
consequence.


I was recently reading an article that claimed Linux is insecure, 
because of it's monolithic kernel codebase:


[ much snippage ]

Anyone else playing with any of these "next generation" operating 
systems?


I haven't been around as some on this list, but here are my brief 
observations. (Well, they were brief -- until I actually starting 
writing them.)


1. Follow the work first, technology second.

The most important factor in any technological deployment is the work 
it allows us to achieve and, more pointedly, to monetize.


It's true that new technology can open new workflows (read: new 
business opportunities), but in general that's a secondary concern for 
all but the most disruptive of technologies.


2. Security is a trade-off, not an absolute

Yes, Linux has and will always have insecurities. As long as an OS has 
a way to elevate permissions (root account, sudo, etc) and people use 
those elevated permissions, insecurity will be an issue. As long as 
people are imperfect, security will not be an absolute; it will be an 
exercise in seeing how many roadblocks you can erect to keep people 
from crime or carelessness.


Again, follow the work not the tech. If someone can achieve clearly 
better work (the shorthand for which is often but not always "make 
more money") deploying the "more secure" OS, then the technology 
becomes interesting. Just remember all the costs involved in deploying 
a new platform: porting userspace applications; training 
administrators, developers, and users; paying for deep support.


3. People are social creatures

Despite thousands of years devising ethical and educational standards, 
people still tend to follow the crowd in most areas of their lives 
rather than strike off by themselves toward excellence.


This has upsides: we don't have to investigate every choice we face 
from the ground up, which would exhaust even the hardest-striving 
among us. And downsides: it's easy to achieve mediocrity and only 
slightly less easy to follow the crowd to evil (see: genocide, 
rioting, etc).


So even a compelling vision of technical excellence will get you 
nowhere without a compelling human story behind it.


4. It's still worth it

Achieving technical excellence may still be worth it to you. I don't 
intend the foregoing points to invoke cynicism. Strike out on your 
own! Excellence is very difficult, but worthwhile. On rare occasions, 
it changes society.


But do so with your eyes open. It's got to be worth it to you, on your 
own and without social and financial support. People may follow you, 
but they most likely won't. Only you know whether the likelihood of 
solitude in your endeavor is an obstacle you're willing to face.


--
Paul Heinlein
heinl...@madboa.com
45°38' N, 122°6' W___
PLUG mailing list
PLUG@pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

[PLUG] What Comes After Unix?

[Tyrell Jentink]

I'm a young'n; I don't remember 4.4BSD or Research UNIX... I also come to
Linux from an IT background, not a Computer Science background, and maybe I
lack a certain historical perspective as a consequence.

I was recently reading an article that claimed Linux is insecure, because
of it's monolithic kernel codebase:
https://threatpost.com/researchers-blame-monolithic-linux-code-base-for-critical-vulnerabilities/136785/


That lead me down a trail of research on Wikipedia, trying to figure out
what they meant by that...  And I discovered a number of interesting things:

First, Many are likening it to a modern incarnation of the
Tanenbaun-Torvalds debates of the early '90s, which are also fascinating
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate

But also, UNIX itself is old hat: Research Unix was a 1960s and 70's
approach to operating mainframes... By the 80's, Bell Labs had grown bored,
and wanted to start playing with distributed systems on commodity PCs, and
they started a new project, Plan 9 From Bell Labs (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs); They doubled down
on the "Everything is a file, Programs should be small, and APIs should be
text based" philosophies... And they created the 9P2000 file sharing
protocol to share all of these "All resources are files" resources with
other computers... They also ignored existing standards, and had no
patience for existing software... It's still around, in the form of a
forked project called 9FRONT, http://9front.org. Fair warning: If you think
*BSD people are rude, these guys are worse in that they are also big fans
of sarcasm and irony... Rumor has it that new users regularly leave the IRC
crying...

9P2000 is still around, too, as the V9FS on Linux and many Unix like
operating systems, and growing popular in VM communities,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P_(protocol)

Then Bell Labs grew bored again... And in the 90's, built Inferno (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system) ), a system
built from lessons learned on Plan 9 From Bell Labs, but featuring a VM not
unlike Java; In fact, it can recompile Java bytecode to run natively.
Inferno is still around, developed by a third party:
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/

Both Plan 9 From Bell Labs and Inferno featured Microkernel technologies...
And in the '90s, Computer Science nerds grew obsessed over microkernels,
and born was the L4 microkernel architecture (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family); They never say so,
but one can see many design similarities between all of the microkernels
and the earlier Plan 9/Inferno experiments.

Where many like to argue that "Linux isn't an OS without GNU,"
microkernels are even less an OS than Linux... in that it doesn't even
directly manage user rights or block devices or network routing... All of
that gets built as servers running in userspace, and THIS is the security
the original article was citing: By getting all that complicated and
potentially buggy software out of the kernel, the kernel can then protect
from the faulty code, and UNIX like operating systems can be built on top.

Another project, Genode (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genode), aims to
add all the services needed to build more of the supporting framework of an
OS, I think of L4+Genode as being analogous to Linux; And a third, SculptOS
(https://genode.org/download/sculpt), to make it all a usable desktop OS,
akin to GNU/Linux.

SculptOS isn't a Unix system per se, and they are quick to say so in their
documentation, but they do use familiar tools as a convenient interface to
the system... Like Bash and VIM.

SculptOS is actually pretty cool, in that they achieved "General Purpose
OS" status by paravirtualizing Linux itself on top of the L4 kernel...
Think of it as GNU/Linux/L4 (GNU on Linux on L4), or something... I'm still
learning, too. There is a slight performance hit, but at 4%, it is
significantly less than a fully virtualized operating system... I think it
would be cool to run Windows and Linux side-by-side, each with only
marginal performance costs, and each running as a user service...

The guys over at ReactOS dismiss L4 as "Just a Hypervisor," but I think
they are missing the big picture... This is opening the door to running
entire operating systems as services next to each other... It's like
Docker, but with WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEMS!

I'm pretty excited... It's like taking my computer from a timeline where
the world stopped evolving in the 1960s, to something... A bit more
adventurous.

At least... It feels that way on paper... And so far, I'm living on paper,
LOL.

Of course... This entire history lesson ignores Mach, which is the
Microkernel under Mac OS and GNU/Hurd, and that might be interesting, too,
if GNU/Hurd weren't developing inside a drum of molasses in the Arctic...

Anyone else playing with any of these "next generation" operating systems?

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 05:25 Richard Owlett  wrote:

> On 09/12/2018