I think they will. It’s a pretty famous quote, even among people who were not old enough to see it first-hand at the time when Linus made that Usenet post.
having looked at the briefly, is really a kernel that's meant to take system calls. I think the unikernel terminology is kinda broken. it's explicitly pared down to talk to a hypervisor rather than supporting a lot of hardware drivers. is a unikernel something you link in like a library? then its not. is a unikernel something that's intended to support a single process? then sure.
That was my first thought. I think adoption will increase if projects will have a clear FAQ about prior / related work, and not leave this to the reader (human or AI) to figure out.
I think it's a kind of like both? it runs as its own guest, but instead of implementing syscalls that are 1:1 with linux, it looks like linux runs as a library, and uses a different more pared down set to take a normal sys call path to the guest. so my guess is not cheaper at all, since instead of the gvisor syscall->vmexit for the common path, its maybe process->sys call to guest->vmexit to hypervisor.
It's a classic exokernel. Which unfortunately feels like there's some secret cabal paying those writing operating systems textbook writers to explain poorly.
Basically the point is rather than keeping the absolute minimum in the kernel, you keep the minimum needed to multiplex the hardware with the fewest abstractions possible. So stick a network driver in there, sure. But does the TCP stack need to be in there? Stick a disk driver in there, but does the VFS need to be in there?
Then you add security so that the fast path doesn't need to go to a user space abstraction service. You have something like bpf so that processes only get the packets that correspond to the ports they've opened, directly from the kernel device driver. Your FS service gives out revocable capabilities to the disk blocks corresponding to files a process was able to successfully open, etc.
The real defensible reason is that with current tools available you can write perfectly safe (safer than Rust even) C++ code, while avoiding the horrid Rust compile times and without needing to pepper your code with unsafe all over the place. LLM's can help you formally verify your code and extensively fuzz/test it to the point where you can actually be sure (ie prove) that the code is safe, without really relying on Rusts compiler. Lastly, C++ lends itself more naturally to hardcore optimizations than Rust. But ultimately it really, _really_ comes down to a) Rust's horrid compile times and b) Rust's horrid metaprogramming support (this even kills it for LLM generated output because it wastes tokens).
I fully expect formally verified C to become the standard for any reasonably critical software. It's astonishing how easy it is to crank out program equivalence proofs these days...
Does this mean you still delegate to something like KVM/paravirtualzation for your device models, but your FTL guest OS can run multiple secure workloads inside a VM?
Or are you designing a custom OS from the ground up to run on native hardware? What constraints are you putting on hardware support to make this a tractable that's not re-implementing all of the stuff that linux has? I assume that's why it's advertised for the "cloud", because you know a priori the deployment machines you're gonna run on? Or is hardware support known by kernel devs to be a (relatively) trivial problem in the OS space, compared to the user-facing features (like processes, scheduling, memory management, etc)?
Or is the bet that microkernel = win = can implement everything linux has and more?
I'm curious about the eventual end goal for the project is, not just what currently exists (as otherwise the answer currently seems to be sentence 1)
This is actually interesting, since most containers don’t actually need an independent kernel at all. Of course, this moves a container a lot closer to effectively being a chroot jail (but that’s a good thing) + having some capabilities taken away.
parts of the kernel design remind me of zircon (handle oriented objects, vmo's, and so on), but then various lines are cut in different places (kernel knows of threads but not processes, maybe handles slightly higher level networking)
Is this written in jest? Because it's very likely where the future of computing is heading. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk; a lot of people were nagging on Casey because he implied that software was more efficient back when everyone "wrote their own kernel" and how "impossible it would be today". He even mentions how awesome it could be if every game came with it's own bootable USB. Now back then it truly was unthinkable, but today we're edging ever closer to that reality.
For instance, I have a working microkernel written in a Lisp dialect for embedded devices. Compiled to native machine code. 100% LLM generated. ~70k loc. In benchmarks it outperforms most other embedded kernel projects by a significant margin. And it only took around ~$1500 in tokens (API costs all included).
A problem with this approach is that it would put a large burden on the application developer (or development system) to support other devices (or services) than initially planned.
Of course, it would be possible to add new drivers only when necessary, but that would also allow for security problems.
So, in theory it might work, but in practice it would require quite a bit of thought.
Now that we are out of the Cambrian explosion of computing hardware - are drivers such a concern anymore? Is there any chance we start consolidating on a few core interfaces?
I know nothing of hardware, but as far as I know, my keyboard and mouse work everywhere because there is a formal specification on how human interface devices are supposed to operate.
There are probably good (and anti-competitive) reasons for why hardware still needs bespoke drivers, but from the outside, it seems like something we could address. I have no interest in loading your artisanally crafted Wifi driver.
As AI reduces the cost for writing closer to the metal, it's also reducing the cost for creating new metal to target. I suspect we'll see an explosion in new hardware as it's cheaper and easier to design custom solutions.
GPUs, wifi, power/thermal management, firmware. Especially in portable computing there is still a huge amount of hardware support surface area to contend with.
Game consoles worked a lot like this until around the PS3 era, where the disc/cartridge the game came on was shipping binaries for everything including all the hardware support.
This led to some hilarious implementation shenanigans for the Wii as a transitional console, where the Home button pause screen is not in fact a task switch to some underlying console OS but rather a piece of the SDK that is separately-delivered from each individual game.
There are/were approaches around in kernels like includeos, which promised to do as little as possible before hading control to you. So not everybody has to create their own driver's etc, but you get a bootable executable for your application.
Includeos in particular then went towards being a complete "application server" and apparently failed to gain a business as Docker became successful.
When AI proves theorems, it uses divide-and-conquer approach just as humans - it breaks a big theorem into lemmas and tackles lemmas one by one.
An alternative approach where it is just one big-ass logical expression is just not better.
Same thing with code, I think - you need some intermediate results like a calling convention, helper subroutines, etc.
A sufficiently powerful AI can do compilation "mentally" - i.e. producing machine code conforming to a specific calling convention. It can also decompile machine code. But you, obviously, don't gain anything doing it this way, if there's one-to-one correspondence between high-level code and machine code. You might as well just write high-level code.
I really hope that software becomes more efficient. But I don't think that it can only be done by generating machine code directly.
A single BOOTX64.EFI that boots a Hyper-V VM straight into a chat prompt, streams replies from an OpenAI-compatible /v1/chat/completions endpoint (DeepSeek by default), and boots whatever the model is asked to: Omarchy, netboot.xyz, or any UEFI image at an http(s) URL. No OS, no history. Dressed up like omp, for the memes
[OP] romac | 6 hours ago
(not my project)
drybjed | 6 hours ago
itsanaccount | 5 hours ago
QuantumNomad_ | 3 hours ago
grimgrin | 3 hours ago
also, thanks to your comment, unaware folks will probably figure it out, which is the subtler point!
baron3dl | 5 hours ago
rand846633 | 3 hours ago
mikepurvis | 2 hours ago
trollbridge | 4 hours ago
mlinksva | an hour ago
[1] https://x.com/seiyanuta [2] https://seiya.me/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42631873 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986229
* I do get the reference and releaize I'm changing the class of the referent. Anyway FTL (or the next one...) FTW, godspeed.
IshKebab | 6 hours ago
convolvatron | 4 hours ago
boguscoder | 4 hours ago
monocasa | 3 hours ago
tekacs | 5 hours ago
eranation | 5 hours ago
convolvatron | 4 hours ago
rvz | 5 hours ago
Now that we have a KVM 0day + VM escape vulnerability [0] right now.
[0] https://x.com/PaulosYibelo/status/2106378929158135903
yjftsjthsd-h | 5 hours ago
monocasa | 3 hours ago
Basically the point is rather than keeping the absolute minimum in the kernel, you keep the minimum needed to multiplex the hardware with the fewest abstractions possible. So stick a network driver in there, sure. But does the TCP stack need to be in there? Stick a disk driver in there, but does the VFS need to be in there?
Then you add security so that the fast path doesn't need to go to a user space abstraction service. You have something like bpf so that processes only get the packets that correspond to the ports they've opened, directly from the kernel device driver. Your FS service gives out revocable capabilities to the disk blocks corresponding to files a process was able to successfully open, etc.
pmkary | 5 hours ago
dekdrop | 5 hours ago
habitue | 4 hours ago
dexterdog | 4 hours ago
boredatoms | 4 hours ago
rfgplk | 3 hours ago
tkz1312 | 3 hours ago
ollybee | 5 hours ago
encom | 4 hours ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBES0jOmbCs
christophilus | 2 hours ago
ivanjermakov | 26 minutes ago
sigbottle | 4 hours ago
Does this mean you still delegate to something like KVM/paravirtualzation for your device models, but your FTL guest OS can run multiple secure workloads inside a VM?
Or are you designing a custom OS from the ground up to run on native hardware? What constraints are you putting on hardware support to make this a tractable that's not re-implementing all of the stuff that linux has? I assume that's why it's advertised for the "cloud", because you know a priori the deployment machines you're gonna run on? Or is hardware support known by kernel devs to be a (relatively) trivial problem in the OS space, compared to the user-facing features (like processes, scheduling, memory management, etc)?
Or is the bet that microkernel = win = can implement everything linux has and more?
I'm curious about the eventual end goal for the project is, not just what currently exists (as otherwise the answer currently seems to be sentence 1)
browningstreet | 33 minutes ago
trollbridge | 4 hours ago
aaronbrethorst | 3 hours ago
raggi | 3 hours ago
mrtesthah | 3 hours ago
https://mirage.io/
monocasa | 3 hours ago
This is really a classic exokernel design.
tamimio | 3 hours ago
comboy | 3 hours ago
rfgplk | 3 hours ago
For instance, I have a working microkernel written in a Lisp dialect for embedded devices. Compiled to native machine code. 100% LLM generated. ~70k loc. In benchmarks it outperforms most other embedded kernel projects by a significant margin. And it only took around ~$1500 in tokens (API costs all included).
smokel | 3 hours ago
Of course, it would be possible to add new drivers only when necessary, but that would also allow for security problems.
So, in theory it might work, but in practice it would require quite a bit of thought.
3eb7988a1663 | 3 hours ago
I know nothing of hardware, but as far as I know, my keyboard and mouse work everywhere because there is a formal specification on how human interface devices are supposed to operate.
There are probably good (and anti-competitive) reasons for why hardware still needs bespoke drivers, but from the outside, it seems like something we could address. I have no interest in loading your artisanally crafted Wifi driver.
unsnap_biceps | 3 hours ago
PunchyHamster | 3 hours ago
For actual real hardware, not really
mikepurvis | 2 hours ago
mikepurvis | 2 hours ago
This led to some hilarious implementation shenanigans for the Wii as a transitional console, where the Home button pause screen is not in fact a task switch to some underlying console OS but rather a piece of the SDK that is separately-delivered from each individual game.
ref. https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/wii/
mejutoco | 3 hours ago
johannes1234321 | 52 minutes ago
Includeos in particular then went towards being a complete "application server" and apparently failed to gain a business as Docker became successful.
https://includeos.org/
killerstorm | 2 hours ago
An alternative approach where it is just one big-ass logical expression is just not better.
Same thing with code, I think - you need some intermediate results like a calling convention, helper subroutines, etc.
A sufficiently powerful AI can do compilation "mentally" - i.e. producing machine code conforming to a specific calling convention. It can also decompile machine code. But you, obviously, don't gain anything doing it this way, if there's one-to-one correspondence between high-level code and machine code. You might as well just write high-level code.
I really hope that software becomes more efficient. But I don't think that it can only be done by generating machine code directly.
teddyh | 38 minutes ago
Not only was it thinkable, it was common: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_self-boot...>
Banditoz | 3 hours ago
chubot | 3 hours ago
Linux namespaces and cgroups and seccomp are a mess ... but actually they are probably more functional than what OS X or Windows provides.
I wonder if we can do better. But maybe not in this project?
greenavocado | 24 minutes ago
A single BOOTX64.EFI that boots a Hyper-V VM straight into a chat prompt, streams replies from an OpenAI-compatible /v1/chat/completions endpoint (DeepSeek by default), and boots whatever the model is asked to: Omarchy, netboot.xyz, or any UEFI image at an http(s) URL. No OS, no history. Dressed up like omp, for the memes