Linked by nfeske on Tue 28th Feb 2012 11:51 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes The just released version 12.02 of the Genode OS Framework takes the first steps to carry out the plan to turn the framework into a general-purpose OS for the daily use by its developers until the end of the year. It features a new ACPI driver, the first bits of a device-driver manager, support for using the fork syscall in GNU programs, and a PDF rendering engine. The most significant point of this release, however, is the way it was conducted. It represents the first version carried out using a completely open development process.
Permalink for comment 508982
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Good
by Alfman on Wed 29th Feb 2012 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

nfeske,

Thank you for the response! It's very nice to hear from people directly involved.

"At a later stage, Genode will hopefully evolve into something that other end users will use. But they will probably not be aware of that."

Some kind of special purpose rebranded OEM arrangement, I understand. Yes that does do away with the "end user problem" nicely ;)


"I am a proponent of porting existing software instead of implementing new software wherever feasible. For doing this, we don't need to convince authors of existing (OSS/FS) projects to explicitly support our platform if their software can be integrated as is."

Clearly being able to run portable software helps offset the fact that not much native software is available. But it seems to me that this this might impede the development/use of more ideal/redesigned/cleaner programming interfaces for the sake of compatibility. For example, I read about your foray with the notorious "fork". Many developers are fans of it, but many also may not realize how many subtle problems it has under the hood: threads, leaking file handles, overcommit, inefficient clone/exec sequences, etc. Also, I imagine deviating from linux's libc, TLS and threading implementations has it's own set of compatibility problems. Have there been instances when compatibility restraints forced you to alter your ideal implementation design?

I'm actually impressed that you guys are tackling these things and I think it's high time complex & baggy monolithic kernels get a run for their money.

Edited 2012-02-29 15:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2