This operating system shares none of those goals, it seems to focus on a particular challenge related to the abstraction between subsystems of the operating system, following a term they call "state spilling". The goal appears to be to design an architecture that supports in-place updates of most components due to them having tightly constrained state management and inter-component dependencies.
The only thing in common with UNIX from current Redox is the POSIX support.
The way that posix filesystem semantics are a kernel provided abstraction is very "unix style".
Precisely none of them in 3-5 decades has managed to deliver on the promise of microkernels prompting the question:
"Were huge microkernel advantages actually greatly oversold, is posix a massively debilitating factor that prevents microkernel based systems from delivering on their raison d'etre or was every single one of those implementations a poor one? [1]"
[1] including QNX
Microkernel as cpu architecture abstraction layer. Such are only accidentally microkernels and not OSes at all as i understand them. They deliver on what of all those wonderful lists of microkernel benefits?
INTEGRITY is a fairly minor player.
Unless you want to give a citation about it's market share.
There are plenty of cases in the world where security trumps cost by a massive, massive amount. Not sure why you're talking about personal cloud computing, probably not interesting there.
How many licenses have you sold for this? How secure is it? Got any kind of metrics to share there?
In the past every single time I've probed claims about QNX (claims not made by QNX themselves at all, I hasten to add) as the example of delivering on the promise of microkernel OSes they have turned out to be unsubstantiated.
Needless to say if, you can substantiate them that would be utterly fantastic! Also a massive, massive marketing opportunity I would have thought. Link us up!
The overall point being that both, microkernels can be unix likes, and redox particularly and at the kernel level leans in to being a unix like.
And redox goes beyond them in that the only user mode env it supports is posix with some extensions.
But how is this line germane to the original point again? That somehow being a microkernel means that it can't be a unix like design OS?
So if Microsoft bothers to certify WSL2 then Windows is now UNIX?!?
> But how is this line germane to the original point again? That somehow being a microkernel means that it can't be a unix like design OS?
POSIX userspace doesn't count, by that measure even an Amiga OS is sundenly an UNIX kernel.
Also a reference CS book in UNIX microkernels architecture would be welcomed.
Even Tanebaum doesn't call Minix 3 a UNIX, rather UNIX inspired.
Of course, the WSL2 layer would be UNIX. There is more than it so calling Windows exclusively unix would be wrong (in the same way that running Windows under a VM, or Winde, on an unix system doesn't make it Windows.
Here, nobody claimed that the Redox kernel was unix-style, so you're fighting a strawman…
Strongly reminds me of Erlang-style hot reload.
Have any OS projects based on that architecture ever got off the ground?
Of course every OS is going to have vulnerabilities. No one claims otherwise.