Re: Broken dream of mine :(

[arnuld uttre]

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Marcus Brinkmann
> <address@hidden> wrote:

> This is not true, at least for me.  Confinement was a big discussion (for
> political reasons), but it didn't affect my kernel choices (or lack thereof)
> at all.  It did influence my ideas for overall system design.


After reading all archives of this month, I came to certain point but
now your words have confused me.

This is what Jonathan Shapiro said:


--------------------------------------------------------------
 It is true that the Coyotos *system* considers encapsulation of data
to be a fundamental requirement. If you cannot tell where data can go,
you cannot determine the scope and consequences of errors. For this
reason, the Coyotos *system* constructs confined subsystems as a
default.

However, the Coyotos *kernel* does not embed this assumption. It is
perfectly possible to build other *systems* on top of the Coyotos
*kernel*. Given that l4-hurd is trying to be something very different
from Coyotos, it was never really my expectation that l4-hurd would
end up using much of the Coyotos *system*. The Coyotos kernel remains
a fairly high-performance alternative, I am not aware of any l4-hurd
goal that it fails to support, and I am not aware of any l4-hurd
anti-goal that it imposes.

So if Coyotos was abandoned for the reasons you suggest, then it was
abandoned for the wrong reasons.

ORIGIN: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2009-09/msg00119.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now I wonder why Viengoos was created as an alternative if Coyotos was fine.


-- 
http://uttre.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/the-lost-love-of-mine/