435
Rust in Linux lead retires rather than deal with more “nontechnical nonsense” (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
209 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Linux people doing Linux things, it seems.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think the point of redox is more than just rewriting Linux in Rust. Architecturally they are very different. Redox uses the more modern microkernel approach, whereas Linux is a modular monolith. There are advantages and disadvantages to both designs. They are actually polar opposites in fact. The compromise is something called a hybrid kernel which is used by Windows NT.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is true, but the differences go even further than that. Redox is intentionally non-posix-compliant. This means that userspace programs written for posix operating systems may or may not need patching to even compile.

    Part of the philosophy of Redox is to follow the beaten path mostly, but not be afraid of exploring better ideas when appropriate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What part of posix is redox trying to get away from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure. I remember seeing an example in the docs, but I can't find it now. Actually the docs in general are a lot less opinionated than I remember them.

    One thing that I did find is that the ion shell document mentions that it isn't a posix compliant shell because they would have had to leave out a bunch of features.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •