Because there’s more to OS development than failed experiments at 90s Bell Labs. It solves actual problems (i.e. plugins in same address space, updating dependencies without relinking everything, sharing code between multiple address spaces). Now, there’s a lot of issues in implementations that can be learned from (i.e. the lack of ELF symbol namespacing); I don’t know if Redox will simply slavishly clone dynamic linking as it exists in your typical Linux system, or iterate on the ideas.
I don’t think plugins in the same address space are a good idea in a low-level language. In particular I think PAM and NSS would have been better as daemons not plugin systems. It’s better to do plugins with a higher-level language that supports sandboxing and has libraries that can be tamed.
Sharing code between address spaces is a mixed blessing. It adds a lot of overhead from indirection via hidden global mutable state. ASLR makes the overhead worse, because everything has to be relinked on every exec.
I don’t think plugins in the same address space are a good idea in a low-level language. In particular I think PAM and NSS would have been better as daemons not plugin systems. It’s better to do plugins with a higher-level language that supports sandboxing and has libraries that can be tamed.
Right, conflating libraries and plugins in dynamic linking was a mistake - especially since unloading libraries is basically impossible. Maybe there’s research into that though?
It’s unfortunate Plan 9 is a thought-terminating object. There’s a lot of room in the osdev space, and unfortunately Plan 9 sucks all the oxygen out of the room when it gets mentioned, especially when it’s the “use more violence” approach to Unix’s problems.
There’s something about Redox that feels special to me, like it might really become something significant someday. That said, I don’t know enough about the technical ins and outs for it to be more than a feeling. Can any of you speak to that, either to confirm or dispel? Does Redox stand a chance of growing into something big? I guess it’s worth looking at it not only from a technical standpoint but also human/community. Do the people working on it seem like folks who can keep momentum for five, ten, or twenty more years of Redox?
Don’t change the title of a page into a question you have about the page! That is extremely unclear. If you have a question, add it as a comment.
Or ask the directly via their discord? I am not even sure why this topic is here.
If the team had posted “why”, then that would be an interesting thing to discuss.
I’m not asking them. I’m asking Lobsters. And I have seen others doing the same recently, so I am not sure why you’re attacking me for it.
To ask lobster.rs, post an #ask question without a link.
For context, what was the original question?
Because there’s more to OS development than failed experiments at 90s Bell Labs. It solves actual problems (i.e. plugins in same address space, updating dependencies without relinking everything, sharing code between multiple address spaces). Now, there’s a lot of issues in implementations that can be learned from (i.e. the lack of ELF symbol namespacing); I don’t know if Redox will simply slavishly clone dynamic linking as it exists in your typical Linux system, or iterate on the ideas.
I don’t think plugins in the same address space are a good idea in a low-level language. In particular I think PAM and NSS would have been better as daemons not plugin systems. It’s better to do plugins with a higher-level language that supports sandboxing and has libraries that can be tamed.
Sharing code between address spaces is a mixed blessing. It adds a lot of overhead from indirection via hidden global mutable state. ASLR makes the overhead worse, because everything has to be relinked on every exec.
Right, conflating libraries and plugins in dynamic linking was a mistake - especially since unloading libraries is basically impossible. Maybe there’s research into that though?
…but arguably not, like, a lot more.
It’s unfortunate Plan 9 is a thought-terminating object. There’s a lot of room in the osdev space, and unfortunately Plan 9 sucks all the oxygen out of the room when it gets mentioned, especially when it’s the “use more violence” approach to Unix’s problems.
How about its own successor, Inferno?
Inferno and Limbo probably mostly live on in Golang, of all things. Rob Pike is like the fucking babadook of tech.
Er. What is a “babadook”? Google tells me it’s a horror film, which isn’t very helpful…
The link seems to point to latest changes in the project, not the specific FAQ(?) entry.
There’s something about Redox that feels special to me, like it might really become something significant someday. That said, I don’t know enough about the technical ins and outs for it to be more than a feeling. Can any of you speak to that, either to confirm or dispel? Does Redox stand a chance of growing into something big? I guess it’s worth looking at it not only from a technical standpoint but also human/community. Do the people working on it seem like folks who can keep momentum for five, ten, or twenty more years of Redox?