First of all I’m not an expert, I’m just passionate about this project and I can’t manage to find enough informations for my taste, I like to understand the direction of projects,
so I have a question about the design decisions when making this OS, I saw they liked to question standards if it’s worth it and I love this, not limiting innovation and picking every OS advancements made so far.
But when they have to make a decision, do they pick security first everytime or what ? There is compromises to make everytime but I would like to know what’s the priority for them ? Would they not implement some security feature because it’s too hard ? too costly in performance ? too far from the standards ?
In my noob opinion, to stand out you have to go all in on security and stability, but I’m not an ingineer.
As an example, I heard about multi kernels, nano/pico kernels, I guess if they havent been choosed they pose too much problem with either complexity/compatibility or don’t offer a large enough advantage ?
Wow thanks, I wasn’t hoping for an answer since it’s such an old post, and thanks for all those sources !
I mostly get the differences between Monolithic and Micro kernels because they are the two big obvious choices, I was more wondering of others choices like the Multi Kernel which is a wild concept which I don’t know if it’s truly useful / feasible.
There are also (I thinks ?) other design decisions apart from kernel that can have advantages but can make POSIX compliance harder, or have a big performance cost or being too complex.
As I understand the philosophy is : if it has already been done before and it worked then they can add it.
I’m just hoping Redox doesn’t “miss out” on some break through OS design (while I don’t know anything about it so it’s quite dumb)
Since I wrote this post I realized that for me the most important thing is how apps are managed, I would find it amazing for all apps running on a system to be submitted to a permission control from the OS (like flatseal or android, but for every apps)
I’m also quite interested in the possibility of Redox to replace Xen for a high security virtualization platform (they could work with QubesOS making it amazing)
I guess all I have to do is to be patient and see where everything is going !
There is no reason Microkernel would be associated to Arm and Monolithic to x86 ? They are interchangeable
The Hurd microkernel OS runs on x86 and Linux runs fine on ARM so there is no reason processor architecture lends itself to any specific kernel architecture at present. They are indeed, interchangable in that regard.
The reason microkernels are considered more secure than monolithic kernels is that drivers generally run in kernel space and can bring the system down easily. Another reason is that an expertly crafted driver can access the memory of the whole system and implement spyware while microkernels isolate drivers from each other and from the kernel’s internals.