> I don't think people should be looking at adding another language to the kernel, mostly because every OS build on it has been a disaster. We just need approac

> I don't think people should be looking at adding another language to the kernel, mostly because every OS build on it has been a disaster. We just need approach and definition for operating systems. What does "we need approach and definition for operating systems" actually mean? (If you know, that is.) Also, it's the Linux kernel, not just the kernel. There are more than one, and every operating system has one[0]. You might be interested in looking at the Mach kernel (Apple[1]) or Google's new Zircon kernel (in Fuchsia). Both of those are microkernels, and as such minimise the amount of work that the kernel does, as well as removing drivers to userspace. Inasmuch as I can extract any meaning from your comment, it seems like your problem might be with the size and scope of Linux's kernel, in which case those might appeal to you. [0] I'm sure this absolute claim will summon someone to point out some recondite 1980s operating system that doesn't have a kernel. [1] Yes, yes, used by Apple.