Linked by Eli Gottlieb on Thu 30th Nov 2006 17:42 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes On December 28th, 2005 - a day which will live in anonymity - OSNews published an editorial of mine urging hobby and research operating system developers to implement Project UDI, because otherwise we (the small/ non-mainstream/ hobby/research OS community) would always wind up stuck with mutually incompatible sets of drivers for doing the same exact things. I also proclaimed that I would implement UDI for my own operating system kernel. Bad decision.
Permalink for comment 187363
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: why not...
by Vanders on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why not..."
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that implementing Linux's driver API also requires that drivers code for a monolithic kernel. Oops, there go all those interesting microkernel projects where the drivers can't access symbols inside the kernel.

I don't see how this is relevent. The situation is identical on Syllable: a driver can not access symbols inside the kernel unless they are made available via. the kernel API (O.K, sure, the driver shares the same memory space as the kernel so you could hack your way around it, but that's irelivent to this discussion)

Linux's driver API also can't work on microkernels..

Agreed. Getting it to work would be possible but you'd have to make a lot of compromises. Although doesn't HURD try to offer some sort of Linux-like driver API?

Reply Parent Score: 1