Instead of a moonshot micro kernel, why didn't Google just build and maintain a new Linux driver API/ABI layer with backwards compatibility and security? Not an easy endeavor, but is it harder than Fuchsia?
It is more moonshot to design an API while Linux devs are constantly pulling the rug under.
Microkernels provide nice secure API boundaries and optimizations to reduce performance impact when crossing them on modern CPUs.
The monolithic design forces you to stay in either user or kernel mode as much as possible to not lose performance. Adding the API and ABI incompatibility makes it near impossible to maintain.
It will require a hard fork of Linux, which won't be Linux anymore. Monolithic design is the artifact of low-register-count CPUs of the past. If you are going to create a hard fork of a kernel, why not use a more modern design anyway?
saidinesh5|1 year ago
https://siliconsignals.io/blog/implementing-custom-hardware-...
That's why you used to not touch vendor partition when flashing a custom ROM etc..
okanat|1 year ago
Microkernels provide nice secure API boundaries and optimizations to reduce performance impact when crossing them on modern CPUs.
The monolithic design forces you to stay in either user or kernel mode as much as possible to not lose performance. Adding the API and ABI incompatibility makes it near impossible to maintain.
It will require a hard fork of Linux, which won't be Linux anymore. Monolithic design is the artifact of low-register-count CPUs of the past. If you are going to create a hard fork of a kernel, why not use a more modern design anyway?
ranguna|1 year ago
amluto|1 year ago
Maybe one could run a Fuchsia-like thing inside Linux and use Linux to provide the Linux userland ABI, but that might be challenging to maintain.
tonfa|1 year ago
jhasse|1 year ago