Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:21:42 -0600 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Gustavo V G C Rios <kernel@lince.tdnet.com.br> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is traditional unixes kernel really stable ? Message-ID: <38EE3546.3401C084@softweyr.com> References: <38ED128C.22C3AA28@tdnet.com.br> <20000406192206.N22104@fw.wintelcom.net> <38ED233E.74716D02@tdnet.com.br> <20000406230234.B4381@fw.wintelcom.net> <38EDD209.421EF9B0@tdnet.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
>
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > Some archs (such as i386) allow the OS to set page protections and
> > io permission bitmaps that effectively can pretect against problems
> > with drivers touching incorrect IO ranges, however...
> >
> > >
> > > Worse yet: What about hardware buggy devices?
> > > This could case the entiry system to crash, isn't it ?
> >
> > Yes, incorrectly programmed hardware either by firmware (on
> > chip/board) or by drivers can cause crashes and hardware damage.
> >
>
> That's the point!
> Why not a different approach ?
> Why not starting a microkernel arch? The microkernel would basically do
> just feel tasks, like:
Great idea, but that's not what FreeBSD is about. I suggest heading
for your favorite search engine and looking up "Flux OS" and "Spring
OS".
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38EE3546.3401C084>