<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jaap Weel</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> > > Well, since we're on the subject and it's only the Cafe list, what is<br>> > > it that you find messy about Linux that you would want to be solved by<br>> > > some hypothetical Haskell OS?
<br><br>The hypothetical Haskell OS, especially if it were targeted toward 64<br>bit machines, could keep processes from messing with each other by way<br>of language based security, and run them all in a single memory<br>
space. (The first system to do this, I believe, was the MULTIPOP<br>timesharing system, but there are other precedents, too.) This would<br>eliminate or simplify lots of context switches and buffer copies and<br>memory management and other nastiness that now goes into kernels.
</blockquote><div><br>Okay, I remember seeing an example of this before , but I'm not sure if I see what language based security Haskell's type system could provide in protecting address spaces from each other. Normally I've seen capabilities used so that you can't access anything you can't name. Can you elaborate a little?