Tanenbaum was right. Linux's monolithic kernel was an awful choice, and has been a huge detriment to software quality and security for 20yrs
-
-
Replying to @justinschuh
Because "microkernel"-based OSes have delivered more security?
2 replies 3 retweets 8 likes -
-
Replying to @halvarflake @justinschuh
Don't bring NT into this: NT3.51 with drivers isolated out of ring 0 was destroyed by the GUI desperados who forced drivers back for NT4.
1 reply 2 retweets 10 likes -
OS X runs a monolithic XNU kernel in a container over Mach pretty much throwing away the concept (OSF/1 did the same, BTW).
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
The question we should all be asking is: why do we continue forgoing good design (and security) for daft reasons?
2 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
NT4 could have kept drivers in ring 1 but manufacturers complained ("root syndrome": everything works as root) plus gaming issues.
2 replies 4 retweets 5 likes -
Nice revisionism. NT never had a Ring 1, and drivers did not run outside of Ring 0.
5 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @aionescu @halvarflake and
Did anyone ever actually use ring 1? I thought everyone decided it wasn't really useful?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
some hypervisors (VirtualBox and Xen) can use it for virtualizing 32-bit operating systems
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.