3 ms·
I dont think Linux did wrong, but, were we to fund new kernels, distributed capabilities (likely via object capabilities) would be great. Thats a huge subject,
by rektide 4y ago
I dont think Linux did wrong, but, were we to fund new kernels, distributed capabilities (likely via object capabilities) would be great. Thats a huge subject, with many avenues, but a kernel as an isolated thing seems like a less ambitious core than what we could be doing.
Controversial, but I'd probably take QUIC or http3 & try to build distributed capabilities on that. Having fast QUIC in kernel, & available to userspace would be very much "heading towards where the puck is going".
It's notable how bad Linux async i/o & others had been. Uring (its much more than io_uring these days) has totslly rewritten the rules, has been a giant leap into modernity. But it's so new! Leaning into uring style completeable syscalls would be essential.
eBPF has shown that programmability of the kernel space opens hella doors. Trying amplify this winning wpuld be great.
The past 10 years have really seen Linux grow all kinds of fast excellent capabilities, griw into itself. The above uring & ebpf examples are high examples of this. DMA-BUF has gone from up-and-comer to become the core win for much of the kernel, for how desktops & media processing are fast & good & flexible. It'll be interesting to see, but I have a hard time imagining more big boom events that push us way forward again continuing.