FTL: A new operating system for clouds(ftl-os.org) |
FTL: A new operating system for clouds(ftl-os.org) |
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).
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.
also, thanks to your comment, unaware folks will probably figure it out, which is the subtler point!
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)
(not my project)
This is really a classic exokernel design.
Now that we have a KVM 0day + VM escape vulnerability [0] right now.