lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Some very thought-provoking ideas about OS architecture.
Ted writes:

>The one challenge with using
>them, though, is that it completely guts your hope of being POSIX.1
>compatible. For example, the open() system call must now take a new
>argument, which is the capability. So does unlink(), and rename(), and
>bind(), and accept().....

Actually, *these* system calls aren't the problem, as most of them take file
descriptors, which are capabilities.

The question comes down to: do you want to facilitate secure collaboration, or
do you want to run POSIX apps. Pick one, because you cannot do both.

>On the flip side, the lack of compatibility means that lose all of the
>Unix utilities (the GNU suite of utilities, the X window system, etc.).

It's surprising how well a compatibility box works. The truth is that most of
your day to day environment can stay in POSIX without much of a problem.
Especially when your compatibility box is about the same speed as the real POSIX
system.


Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph. D.
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Email: shapj@us.ibm.com
Phone: +1 914 784 7085 (Tieline: 863)
Fax: +1 914 784 7595



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.036 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site