1. 34
  1. 15

    “Operating system design has been somewhat stagnant since, well, ever. Sure, once in a while, you hear of a cool os that some company worked on ten years ago or an interesting prototype that has recently crawled it’s way out of a professor’s underground lab”

    There’s probably several a year at a minimum. Almost all are made by CompSci but companies do stuff too (eg Fuchsia). I stopped tracking them since there were too many with a lot of duplicated capabilities (esp cloud stuff). If you liked Singularity, you might find SPIN, J-Kernel, JX, Verve, and ExpressOS interesting.They all use a type-safe language with simpler architecture. High-assurance security mostly went with microkernels and separation kernels with Nizza paper explaining the concept nicely. GenodeOS takes that approach. Finally, there were also high-assurance, browser architectures and OS’s like IBOS that shared a few goals such as portability with Javascript support.

    Hope you enjoy some of this stuff as you think about OS design. And welcome to Lobsters! :)

    1. 3

      G’day Nick, Have you looked at redox at all? Also in a similar vein, but in Java and not developed any more I think, is jnode.

      1. 2

        Both Redox and Muen separation kernel could be on the list. JNode was neat but I didnt evaluate its security. JX had neat architecture.

        1. 2

          Jnode was trying to run legacy x86 software with my very own jpc.

          1. 4

            If you like those, check out sanos. It’s an older one with a Windows focus few seem to know about.

    2. 5

      I’m really happy to see someone try their hand at writing an operating system from scratch in Rust that attempts to do something novel in the space and is a little ambitious.

      1. 3

        If you would like to experiment yourself, and don’t have much OS-writing experience, I found this quite helpful.

      2. 4

        This is great and very interesting! We need more people working on stuff that really challanges the status quo. Keep it up!

          1. 1

            I don’t understand how it’s possible pick three here: “full-native speed”, single address space OS (everything in ring 0) and security. I believe you can only pick two.

            1. 1

              Well, that’s what nebulet is trying to challenge.

                1. 1

                  I haven’t yet read the whole paper but in the conclusion they say that performance was a non-goal. They “also improved message-passing performance by enabling zero-copy communication through pointer passing”. Although I don’t see why zero-copy IPC can’t be implemented in a more traditional OS design.

                  The only (performance-related) advantage such design has in my opinion is cheaper context-switching, but I’m not convinced it’s worth it. Time (and benchmarks) will show, I guess.

                  1. 1

                    When communication across processes becomes cheaper than posting a message to a queue belonging to another thread in the same process in a more traditional design, I’d say that that’s quite a monstrous “only” benefit.

                    I should have drawn your attention to section 2.1 in the original comment, that’s where you original query is addressed. Basically the protection comes from static analysis, a bit like the original Native Client or Java’s bytecode verifier