News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The State of Linux Security. Parent comment

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 ]