[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changing from L4 to something else...

From: Alfred M\. Szmidt
Subject: Re: Changing from L4 to something else...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:18:35 +0200

   You seem to forget that one of the reasons the Hurd has been
   next-to-dead for a number of years is that even its developers and
   original designers seem convinced that it has a number of
   "unfixable" bugs.  More precisely, "unfixable" here means: "not
   fixable on the current Hurd-on-Mach implementation".

Several things wrong there, none of the `bugs' in the Hurd on Mach are
unfixable (even by your definition of unfixable).  The original
designers (i.e. Thomas and Roland) actually thought that Mach was a
bad choice to start with.

Nor has the Hurd been next-to-dead for a number of years, I really
have no idea where people get that idea from.

   Even as a simple "lurker", I now know those flaws too well to feel
   comfortable advocating the use of the Hurd on Mach.  Moreover, some
   of these deficiencies (e.g. the passive translator vulnerability)

Once gain those are not vulnerabilites in passive translators, but how
a chroot works.  Now I'm wondering if the Hurdish chroot (fakeroot)
allows for this...

   Really, I don't think the rationale for switching to L4 was
   satisfying people's "security paranoia": it was about fixing some
   of those "unfixable" issues.

Switching from Mach to L4 is all good and well, switching from Mach to
L4 to L4.sec to Coyotos to FOO and writting a couple thousand lines of
code for each switch is not.  And that is exactly how it looks, and it
will delay the Hurd for a number of years.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]