Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I Googled a lot about L4 microkernel and found that very less resources are there on L4.
L4 supposedly passed one billion installs a year ago, so, the short answer is yes. According to my reading, Linux running on top of L4 is factors faster than running alone, making for a Linux L4, and Android has been ported to L4 on top of linux. My view, is if so many installs are running, why can’t we have L4 available to us through a shell, such ksh or bash? The short answer is drivers; it was chosen for us by the L4 gods that L4 should be Linux to support drivers, even though Linux is short on drivers. There is a little about it here on this community wiki: http://alopex.li/wiki/L4FiascoTutorial
And the rationale for L4/Linux here: http://www.slideshare.net/sartakov/03-advanced-components
If drivers are so problematic, such that free software prevents commercial vendors from writing them, then why not create a “qt” version for driver writers, that is to say a public domain kit that unifies computer functionality to define drivers. Then OS writers would create the backend for their OS such that the vendor only has to do the work once.
The other useful topic is the idea of a VM over L4, using Perl Parrot VM (PVM) as a hypothetical example; if L4 could be modified to run strictly in registers…. imagine the performance