Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Great! except that to be called a kernel it's missing just a process manager, memory manager, filesystem, process separation and hardware abstraction. Yeah I'm that guy, down vote me as you wish, the article is still wrong.

It's a way to load a ring-0 application into grub. Pretty cool, but not a kernel.



It's a statically linked program, real memory, diskless system, kernel-mode-only kernel without too much fluff in the video i/o abstraction.


Is Super Mario Bros. a kernel? Every NES, Game Boy, Sega Genesis, etc... game ran on the "bare metal" without anything resembling an OS (or even a BIOS, really).


Kernel means "core". Kernel-mode-only kernel is a contradiction. If you don't have separate parts, you can't have a core.


So if you write core software for an architecture without privsep you must not call it a kernel?


I'm not talking about privsep, just different modules. I gonna answer you with another question:

Did MS-DOS had a kernel?


Yes. We all lose here today.


It depends. Being downvoted by people that believes a memcpy() is a kernel, is victory.


The start of an extreme microkernel. Just add messaging, a little memory work, processes and the rest can be possibly done in user mode!


I agree, it's like a microkernel, you only have to add a microkernel.


There are plenty of kernels which don't do most of the things you mentioned.


They are called libraries.


Or embedded systems. YMMV.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: