Re: A comment about changing kernels

[ness]

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> As I have already written, I think that the Hurd project is coming to a
> difficult architectural choice about the future of the Hurd. The outcome
> of this community decision will be the single largest factor in
> determining what new kernel to use.
>
> If the goal of Hurd is primarily to build an extended and improved POSIX
> system, then the existing L4 or L4.x2 kernel is sufficient for this. The
> main advantage of this choice is that all of the necessary pieces are
> available right now.
>
> If the goal of Hurd includes providing a more secure and robust
> foundation, then I think that either L4.sec or Coyotos will be the right
> kernel choice. Obviously I have a preference, but the Hurd decision
> needs to be driven by the Hurd requirements and not by my preferences.
That is right, of course. But maybye it would be nice fo you to explain 
why you think coyotos is better than l4.sec.

> The one thing I *will* say about this decision is that it is a "one way"
> decision. Once a significant body of code is committed to an older,
> insecure microkernel API, it will become progressively more difficult to
> change that decision later.
>
> Since either the old or the new Hurd could be implemented on the more
> secure foundation, this *may* be a reason to use one of the newer
> kernels in either case, *provided* they become available to be used soon
> enough.
>
> shap
Marcus already mentioned that l4.sec is no alternative, as the time of 
release is too far away.
But actually we (or at least I) don't know much about coyotos. I can't 
even say whether it is persistent. And your documentation page isn't 
that helpful, as the kernel spec is mostly incomplete. (btw, I tried to 
subscribe to the coyotos lists but I got no mails - has there been 
traffic this afternoon?)
--
-ness-