[cap-talk] Midori in The Register
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.com
Wed Jul 30 15:57:51 CDT 2008
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 21:29 +0100, Toby Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 14:58 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > Midori certainly will NOT be the successor to windows. It's a
> > qualitative shift in technology, and backward compatibility just isn't
> > going to happen with any bounded amount of cost here.
> That's probably true but don't forget that compatibility is a simple as
> implementing a virtual machine. Given the connection to the hypervisor
> technology mentioned in the article and the strong natural similarities
> anyway between microkernels and hypervisors, it is not unthinkable that
> one could provide compatability by executing legacy code in its own
> The work by the various L4 groups at running whole Linux stacks on top
> of various flavours of the L4 microkernel (including some of the newer
> capability-based ones) demonstrates that the embedded space is not the
> only possible application area, but merely the easiest one to target.
In this case I think not. One of the major points of Singularity was to
do away with the address space abstraction. While I would certainly not
put it past MS to make an architectural compromise of the sort that you
are describing, it would be difficult to do this for Singularity/Midori.
Perhaps more importantly, users will not accept a "multiple worlds"
view. Solving the multiple worlds perception would be a significant
More information about the cap-talk