Google slams Linux kernel

“Instead of testing kernels after they're released, it's more effective to test during development,” suggests Cook
Click to expand...
This sounds like common sense to me. The fact it is a "suggestion" shows the current development model is flawed.
 
tux2bsd said:
Google want to establish (more?) control aka "invest".

Google refuse to do security properly as it is. How many billion Android devices are out of security support?
Click to expand...
Correct.
Google's solution lies here! They could dump that wanna-be O/S called Fuschia and adopt FreeBSD. It works on most ARMs, has a permissive licence so they can do what they please and we might even get a better OS for it. A win-win.

FreeBSD foundation: Get your arses/asses off to Google post haste!
 
I don't think we should be prodding Google, at least not beckoning them in that way. Criticizing where deserved is another story.

If that were a complaint from a small company, then it would make sense. but from a multi-billion dollar company that can afford to write its own kernels? That's his job to fix. "It's a nightmare for us" to fix it. Well, you can afford to write 50 unique kernels from scratch, if you wanted to. Seriously, he complains about OpenBSD security as being too focused on security, but criticizes Linux security as a task to implement, which he can more than afford to pay workers well to fix it or write a new kernel. Or he expects OpenBSD and Linux to do his job for him.

Aside from that, maybe they want something like a Minix kernel instead of a Linux one. Then again, I'm not interested in that guy's opinion, and I'm not a fan of what goes on around the Linux kernel.
 
mark_j said:
Correct.
Google's solution lies here! They could dump that wanna-be O/S called Fuschia and adopt FreeBSD. It works on most ARMs, has a permissive licence so they can do what they please and we might even get a better OS for it. A win-win.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether you mean this, or whether you are intending this as a joke.
 
sidetone said:
I don't think we should be prodding Google, at least not beckoning them in that way.
Click to expand...
"We" didn't do anything. I did.

I was an OpenBSD user in 2015 when he said that. I can attest to the fact that every monkey in that room was typing Shakespeare.

I hit on hottie Google geek girl, Mary Lou Jepsen, too. I bet she's got one of the wallpapers I made for her on her desktop right now.


When I was at GeoCities, promoting my first site on the Boards, I saw a guy picking on Don Garlits.

Big Daddy Don Garlits who I had admired since a child.

Uh oh...

I showed that guy how it felt to get picked on, administered some bad Karma and saved my childhood Hero.

He had a GeoCities site which reflected his belief in UFO's. I asked him privately if he didn't worry about what people might think.

He said "I'm Big Daddy Don Garlits. I'm famous. I don't give a damn what they think."

That was my first day on the job as an Independent Agent of Chaos of more than 20 years.
Everyone who is famous has Fame, but not everyone who has fame has infamy.

I do and I don't give a damn what he thinks.
 
Trihexagonal said:
"We" didn't do anything. I did.
Click to expand...
Ok. lol

I was also referring to another response as well. I didn't agree with the FreeBSD Foundation action comment in principle. I don't see that doing any good. If they do come to FreeBSD, screw it, but I don't think it's good influence.
Trihexagonal said:
was typing Shakespeare.
Click to expand...
Which one?

Well, I criticized his comments anyway. That was too much to say coming from someone who can afford to have 50 unique kernels written, then criticizes something he gets for free.
 
sidetone said:
That was too much to say coming from someone who can afford to have 50 unique kernels written, then criticizes something he gets for free.
Click to expand...
In many ways I think we are in this strange situation where a secure kernel simply cannot be made by paying people. It needs to come from true open-source and it needs to be written via passionate people. It takes time and effort. I don't feel people simply doing a paid job are able to give that. Especially since it will take millions of man hours.

The Linux kernel is a jumble sale of everyone pushing their agendas and doing it quickly to "be the first". That and hardware vendors doing the absolute minimum to get their hardware out there as soon as possible. This cannot produce a secure system.

OpenBSD is unlikely an option due to their tendency to *not* play ball with companies like Google. In the past they have have had issues with DARPA funding because they wanted to do what they wanted and say what they wanted. Ultimately I feel this is the best stance to have for a high quality output though. Just Google can't benefit!

FreeBSD is a little more relaxed with corporate influences, though not quite as much as Linux (whether this is due to opportunity or opinion is another matter). So if Google wants a secure kernel, I feel FreeBSD will be their best choice going forward. Obviously this will royally screw up everything that is good currently. They will suck the project dry.
 
Google should go with Minix's kernel. It's everything he wants anyway.

Google will push too much weight around, maybe away from what FreeBSD has always been.
 
“Instead of testing kernels after they're released, it's more effective to test during development,” suggests Cook
Click to expand...
bsduck said:
This sounds like common sense to me. The fact it is a "suggestion" shows the current development model is flawed.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you guys even have that testing is not done "during development"? This thread may be in the off-topic section, but all I see is bandwagoning around some bashing comments from someone in this thread, rather than any kind of informed discussion/debate.
 
kpedersen said:
In many ways I think we are in this strange situation where a secure kernel simply cannot be made by paying people. It needs to come from true open-source and it needs to be written via passionate people. It takes time and effort. I don't feel people simply doing a paid job are able to give that. Especially since it will take millions of man hours.

The Linux kernel is a jumble sale of everyone pushing their agendas and doing it quickly to "be the first". That and hardware vendors doing the absolute minimum to get their hardware out there as soon as possible. This cannot produce a secure system.
Click to expand...
I think the major difference between Linux and the FreeBSD kernel is the number of eye balls having a closer look at it. This number is much, much bigger at Linux compared to FreeBSD. Would FreeBSD have the same number of eye balls taking a closer look, oh boy, I am pretty sure the number of found exploits would skyrocket.
 
hardworkingnewbie said:
And I think these papers underestimate the principle of the more people are looking, the more comes to light, a lot.
Click to expand...
If you see a hundred people on the street, what are your chances of seeing a doctor walk by? If you go to a hospital, and see a hundred people walk by, your chances (of seeing a doctor walk by) go up dramatically. And what if you actually need a doctor? Same with looking at kernel source code.
 
I believe that due to Microsoft's collection of Shared Source / University / Internal business agreements, there are probably more eyeballs looking at the NT kernel code than FreeBSD. Does that make Windows more secure? I am not convinced.

A lot of the Linux kernel source code is very rarely looked at (and very rarely properly audited). It has been dumped in there by some vendor and forgotten about. So again, I don't know if we can classify Linux as more secure. Certainly some code paths *do* have greater coverage in terms of verification.

In many ways I would be really interested in some sort of measurement / experiment here. I think the best we can do is with static analyzers but very few of them can find new issues in any of the projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top