The State of Linux Security

Re:The State of Linux Security by mtgx on Thursday December 22, 2016 @11:52PM (#13242924)

The real irony is that Android might as well run on a microkernel, considering no OEM has any intention of ever making their firmware work on anyone else's hardware. Everyone's ROMs would be more or less just as incompatible as they are now, but at least they'd be faster and much more secure at the kernel level.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by dispose13432 on Friday December 23, 2016 @12:30AM (#13243059)

>but at least they'd be faster

The problem with microkernal's isn't compatibility, it's speed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by snvzz on Monday December 26, 2016 @12:42PM (#13259020)

http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by pjmlp on Friday December 23, 2016 @09:37AM (#13244894)

QNX, Genode and L4 have solved that problem longtime ago.

The problems with microkernels are mostly urban legends.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by dispose13432 on Friday December 23, 2016 @01:22PM (#13246326)

So why can't hurd get its act together?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by snvzz on Monday December 26, 2016 @12:46PM (#13259037)

Because they're still using Mach, and most capable contributors moved on to microkernel-based projects that actually aren't hopeless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by pmoriarty on Friday December 23, 2016 @04:32PM (#13247327)

Lack of volunteers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by pjmlp on Friday December 23, 2016 @03:08PM (#13246935)

Lack of resources and manpower.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Linux Security by snvzz on Monday December 26, 2016 @12:41PM (#13259016)

Google's working on Fuchsia. This might be exactly their plan.

[ Parent | on HN ]