Sporktacular

66 ms·

1. 871.▲
   by Sporktacular 8y ago

   I don't need to - the paper just did that by conflating monolithic kernels with security failures that were avoidable.
2. 872.▲
   by Sporktacular 8y ago

   No, it hasn't: "One Million Muslim Uighurs Have Been Detained by China, the U.N. Says. Where’s the Global Outrage?" https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/china-muslims-uighur-det...
3. 873.▲
   by Sporktacular 8y ago

   If we can't make reasonably secure controllers with only 4KB of RAM, perhaps we shouldn't be making controllers with only 4KB of RAM. Tech and market pressure will make more capable processors affordable if security is prioritised
4. 874.▲
   by Sporktacular 8y ago

   In a world of constant security threats and 2 GHz CPUs dedicated to cat videos - needing speed can no longer be the excuse for poor design. And "embedded CPUs need every precious cycle" is not an argument either. As the paper says
5. 875.▲
   by Sporktacular 8y ago

   And in that dimension there would be debate about whether we should cut corners by reducing security and reliability to slightly improve speed and mollify lazy programmers. That debate would be short and the answer would be "nope, we s
6. 876.▲
   by Sporktacular 8y ago

   Some super low quality commentary here. Straight to the Monolithic/Microkernal tribalism, talk of parallel dimensions, as long as we ignore the content of the paper - which remains far more empirical and convincing than any rebuttal se