Examining the Legendary Hurd Kernel (2008)

Re:Examining the Legendary Hurd Kernel (2008) by vezzy-fnord on Saturday July 11, 2015 @07:37PM (#9871980)

If you'd ask me to define the problem with microkernels with one word, that would be "complexity".

The problem with Mach, you mean. All the examples you listed are specific to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining the Legendary Hurd Kernel (2008) by sergiolp on Saturday July 11, 2015 @09:04PM (#9872178)

I don't know about other implementations, but I remember the original design of l4hurd (based on L4Ka), was even more complex. I'd same this applies to all "pure" multiserver designs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining the Legendary Hurd Kernel (2008) by nickpsecurity on Saturday July 11, 2015 @11:58PM (#9872532)

Check out Genode.org, MINIX 3, or QNX. Seem to have gotten a lot more done than Hurd despite being microkernel-based OS's. KeyKOS is one of the best from back in the day with EROS being a nice x86 variant of it. Turaya Desktop is based on Perseus Framework.

Many working systems in production from timesharing to embedded to desktop that are microkernel-based. Hurd and Mach's problems are most likely due to design choices that created problems.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Examining the Legendary Hurd Kernel (2008) by sergiolp on Sunday July 12, 2015 @03:04AM (#9872795)

I don't know about the others, but at least both QNX and Minix3 cheated a little, i.e. allowing servers to write directly to other user space programs.

Also, the presence of microkernel+multiserver systems is still quite symbolic in comparison with the monolithic couterparts.

[ Parent | on HN ]