From 7f502dce2a0ca957b999f6cc8c1b6612bcbed71a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: antrik Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:39:53 +0200 Subject: faq/which_microkernel: Discussion of new text --- faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) create mode 100644 faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn (limited to 'faq') diff --git a/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn b/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9ef3b915 --- /dev/null +++ b/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +This version mixes up three distinct phases: rewrite from scratch; redesign; +own microkernel. + +While Okuji initially might have intended a direct port of the existing Hurd +code, by the time I started following Hurd development (2004 IIRC), it has been +long clear that Hurd/L4 is a rewrite from scratch. + +The next phase was the desire of Neal and especially Macrus to completely +reinvent the design of the Hurd. This was mostly fueled by Shapiro's influence, +resulting in a security-above-everything rage. It was in this phase that not +only the original L4 has been abandonend, but also all thoughts about using +newer L4 variants (which might have been suitable) were forsaken in favor of +Shapiro's Coyotos. + +The whole idea of redesigning the Hurd -- especially for security concerns -- +is highly controversial: I always strongly objected to it; and Marcus later +admitted himself that he got carried away and lost sight of what really matters +for the Hurd. (But only after realising that Shapiro's notion of high security +is fundamentally incompatible with the GNU philosophy.) I opted for not +explicitely mentioning this aspect in the FAQ at all, as it's impossible to +explain properly in a compact form, and probably impossible at all to do it in +an objective fashion. + +The final phase -- following the realisation of incompatibility with +Shapiro/Coyotos -- was the attempt to create new microkernels specifically for +Hurd's needs. Marcus abandonned his pretty soon, and never made it public, so I +didn't mention it at all; but Viengoos is still relevant in certain ways. + +BTW, my original text also more explicitely answers the question what happened +to the Coyotos port -- which after all is what the title promises... + +All in all, I still think my text was better. If you have any conerns with it, +please discuss them... -- cgit v1.2.3