Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 11:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 520373
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sadly, these will never go very far unless the major OSs decide to do a step in the right direction themselves.
This is the main issue. No alternative OS architecture, or systems programming language, will ever take off, if no one from the major OS vendors picks them up.
This is the main issue. No alternative OS architecture, or systems programming language, will ever take off, if no one from the major OS vendors picks them up.
I don't believe that to be true. An OS and/or programming languages don't require major vendor support, they require user & developer support. Of course help from the big guys can be a tremendous help & benefit, but their participation isn't a requirement for success.





Member since:
2010-03-08
You are not alone. Microkernels and VM-based OSs are two example of common OS designs that go in that direction, Singularity being an example of the latter and Genode, QNX, MINIX and my pet project being examples of the formers.
Sadly, these will never go very far unless the major OSs decide to do a step in the right direction themselves. In a way, I think that Android is the best thing that has happened to OS security recently, in that it is the first mainstream OS that actually tries a novel approach to solving security problems instead of hiding them behind the closed doors of a vetting process. Implementation sucks, though.
Totally true. The problem is that all too often, corporations use security as an excuse to get more control on their users. Whereas the goal of a proper security system, to the contrary, would be to help users deal with trust issues in an informed and efficient way.
Edited 2012-06-01 19:55 UTC