Re: Debian GNU/Linux Logo chosen
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Wintermute wrote:
> As I read more and more about Hurd.. I still can't stop thinking
> "WHY?".. in a couple hundred more revisions.. the Linux kernel may well
> come close to being a microkernel. What are the clear cut benefits?
> (Just a few simple lines please.. no dissertations.. I'd as a professor
> of computer science for that...)
I'm no expert on kernel architectures, but this fragment I snipped from
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-paper.html seems the most
interesting aspect to me:
"A multi-server divides the kernel functionality up into logical blocks
with well-defined interfaces. Properly done, it is easier to make changes
and add functionality. So most multi-server projects do somewhat better.
Much more of the system is pageable. You can debug the system more easily.
You can test new system components without interfering with other users.
But the wall between user and system remains; no user can cross it without
special privilege.
The GNU Hurd, by contrast, is designed to make the area of system code as
limited as possible. Programs are required to communicate only with a few
essential parts of the kernel; the rest of the system is replaceable
dynamically. Users can use whatever parts of the remainder of the system
they want, and can easily add components themselves for other users to
take advantage of. No mutual trust need exist in advance for users to use
each other's services, nor does the system become vulnerable by trusting
the services of arbitrary users."
Seems neat to be able to hack the kernel without hacking the kernel...
TL
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: