3 ms·

But that is the entire point of the comparison. I get that you think an apples to apples comparison is the most honest way to portray this, but the whole point

But that is the entire point of the comparison. I get that you think an apples to apples comparison is the most honest way to portray this, but the whole point is to portray that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Linux has millions of lines of code running in ring 0, a micro kernel does not. They may end up having the same lines of code for comparable total system size, but that isn’t the point of the comparison. Process isolation actually isn’t fundamentally hard…it’s just hard on a system that wasn’t designed for it. And SELinux doesn’t do what microkernels do. Even with a tightly locked down SELinux configuration, a driver vulnerability can lead to root access. SELinux can protect your userland the same way that microkernels do, but it can’t put your drivers in userland.

taeric 3y ago
Fair. I'm not a fan of apples to oranges comparisons without leaning into more of it. Especially not when the obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. I do question if process isolation isn't fundamentally hard. Separate processes for separate things entirely is not fundamentally hard. That, I agree. But, so much of what we do is integrated together. Is why early attempts to make it so that some programs can't see my whole hard drive are bonkers annoying. I specifically want access to the picture I just saved in that editing program so that I can email it.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  >obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. In this case they’re both old though, as Hurd predates Linux by a year.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Fair, if amusing. Hurd "predates" Linux in name only. And, if anything, this would serve as a strong piece of evidence that microkernels have a hard time getting traction.
    - CRConrad 3y ago
      Which brings the debate back to the argument, doubtless made many many times over the years, that there is probably a reason that microkernels have a hard time getting traction.
- rleigh 3y ago
  QNX managed it! Drivers run in separate address spaces as, does the kernel, making it very robust. It's used for safety-critical applications.

taeric 3y ago

Fair. I'm not a fan of apples to oranges comparisons without leaning into more of it. Especially not when the obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. I do question if process isolation isn't fundamentally hard. Separate processes for separate things entirely is not fundamentally hard. That, I agree. But, so much of what we do is integrated together. Is why early attempts to make it so that some programs can't see my whole hard drive are bonkers annoying. I specifically want access to the picture I just saved in that editing program so that I can email it.

edgyquant 3y ago
>obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. In this case they’re both old though, as Hurd predates Linux by a year.
- taeric 3y ago
  Fair, if amusing. Hurd "predates" Linux in name only. And, if anything, this would serve as a strong piece of evidence that microkernels have a hard time getting traction.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    Which brings the debate back to the argument, doubtless made many many times over the years, that there is probably a reason that microkernels have a hard time getting traction.
rleigh 3y ago
QNX managed it! Drivers run in separate address spaces as, does the kernel, making it very robust. It's used for safety-critical applications.