Ok Mr Tanenbaum, Linus and you already had this argument </sarcasm>
Or go to random website look for .Git folders, recreate directory structure from object file, get MySQL passwords and steal user data (I'm not responsible for anyone using my comment for illegal purposes)
Microkernals are supposed to make OSes more stable but they don't. Linux work good enough due to automated testing and amazing kernel engineers.
GNU Hurd, Mach 3, Minix - so far track record isn't good. Stop flamewaring and fire up vim. Write a microkernals if you think you can do a better job
Well, you'd need the adequate permissions to do that in the firstr place.
Or you'd have to exploit the VFS (good luck with that), the disk driver (which is hidden behind VFS, good luck with that), or some other driver which hardware is for some reason not isolated via iommu (good luck with that).
> Linux work good enough due to automated testing and amazing kernel engineers.
You definitely do not run much Linux on production, else you'd know how amazing 2016 has been, regarding kernel vulnerabilities.
Some of them were even reliably exploitable on grsec/pax patched kernels.
> Microkernals are supposed to make OSes more stable but they don't.
Except most RTOSs and anything with high assurance requirements uses microkernels.
> GNU Hurd, Mach 3
Hurd uses Mach, a pre-liedtke, old world microkernel. Not really worth pointing at it, the same way 1971 UNIX isn't representative of Linux.
> Minix - so far track record isn't good.
Minix is doing quite well at what it set out to do: Fault-tolerance.
The problems they solve are orthogonal to kernel issues.
Sandboxing thwarts userspace attacks (any program I install has access to my userspace). Microkernels solve kernel side attacks.
The problem with microkernal's isn't compatibility, it's speed.
The problems with microkernels are mostly urban legends.
It is called L4 and is responsible for the baseband communications and secure enclave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#Commerci...