To me it looks more like a hobby/toy OS (nothing wrong with that btw) riding the Rust hype wave.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Redox: A Rust-Written, Microkernel Open-Source OS
Collapse
X
-
One rather nice microkernel feature is filesystems in userspace, I hope they specifically implement the FUSE api, as that would give them a bunch of filesystems for free, including zfs, which they say they want to support, and sshfs, which is obligatory.
I also hope they take some inspiration from Plan9, which in many ways was unix as it should have been.
Btw, redox sounds like a chemical reaction — one that creates rustLast edited by andreano; 20 March 2016, 05:26 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zanny View Post
That page is actually painful to read. They are actually trying to claim that proprietary forks that bleed the project dry are beneficial to end users, when exactly the opposite is true. Violating users software freedoms never gives them a better product.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by log0 View Postthe Rust hype wave.
I am more doubtful about Redox for its choice of license, as others have pointed out.Last edited by andreano; 20 March 2016, 06:45 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Posti.e. it will be as successfull as hurd
There's nothing wrong with the concept of a microkernel... it actually has quite a few advantages over monolithic kernels. The main downside of the micro kernel from my understanding is the latency introduced due to the IPC between user space and kernel space (which exists in monolithic kernels as well if you ever write a user space USB driver for instance in Linux).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shimon View PostRedox is important for showing Rust off as a systems programming language. It's not going to try replacing Linux any time soon and its developers are sane people who never put such claims forward.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by carewolf View PostNo, they are not entirely sane when it comes to Linux. Don't read their FAQ, they are anti-Linux nuts.
I don't see why it's 'nuts' for them to spend much of the FAQ to explaining the problems they hope to solve. Step One of any project is "why will people want this over what's already there?".
Since we already have a couple of good open OSs, the rationale for a new one is obviously going to be a list of things they think are wrong with Linux or BSD and hope to improve on.
Last edited by FLHerne; 20 March 2016, 09:27 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by computerquip View Post
Hurd isn't successful because it has no goals, is over 15 years old. and still ended up with shoddy design.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of a microkernel... it actually has quite a few advantages over monolithic kernels. The main downside of the micro kernel from my understanding is the latency introduced due to the IPC between user space and kernel space (which exists in monolithic kernels as well if you ever write a user space USB driver for instance in Linux).
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by computerquip View PostThe main downside of the micro kernel from my understanding is the latency introduced due to the IPC between user space and kernel space (which exists in monolithic kernels as well if you ever write a user space USB driver for instance in Linux).Last edited by pal666; 21 March 2016, 06:29 AM.
Comment
Comment