<story><title>Kaspersky OS</title><url>https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2016/11/15/finally-our-own-os-oh-yes/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kriro</author><text>No word on if this is FLOSS or not in the article so I&amp;#x27;m assuming it&amp;#x27;ll be something closed. Which essentially renders the entire exercise moot form my POV.
I also don&amp;#x27;t like how they mentioned Linux. They make it sound as if&lt;p&gt;(a) Linux is very insecure...I&amp;#x27;m no expert but I&amp;#x27;d like to see them prove their system is more secure than a Linux distro dedicated to security.&lt;p&gt;(b) Linux is the only viable option. There&amp;#x27;s plenty of other operating systems, some even focus on security (starting with the list of existing microkernels).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>peterkelly</author><text>&amp;gt; I also don&amp;#x27;t like how they mentioned Linux&lt;p&gt;I do. Every time I read an article on a new &amp;quot;operating system&amp;quot; someone has released, it turns out to basically just be another Linux distribution, or a new gui&amp;#x2F;runtime environment running on top of the Linux kernel. Kaspersky took a step back and thought about their requirements, and decided to go with a microkernel architecture because they felt that was a better approach for security (a choice I agree with).&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s refreshing to see &lt;i&gt;genuinely&lt;/i&gt; new OSs built from the ground up (open source or not), because it shows that not everyone is stuck in the mindset of Linux when they want to innovate in the OS space. That&amp;#x27;s not to say that Linux is necessarily a bad choice for many scenarios, just that it&amp;#x27;s great to see projects that don&amp;#x27;t restrict themselves based on the design of Linux (and, more generally, Unix).</text></comment>
<story><title>Kaspersky OS</title><url>https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2016/11/15/finally-our-own-os-oh-yes/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kriro</author><text>No word on if this is FLOSS or not in the article so I&amp;#x27;m assuming it&amp;#x27;ll be something closed. Which essentially renders the entire exercise moot form my POV.
I also don&amp;#x27;t like how they mentioned Linux. They make it sound as if&lt;p&gt;(a) Linux is very insecure...I&amp;#x27;m no expert but I&amp;#x27;d like to see them prove their system is more secure than a Linux distro dedicated to security.&lt;p&gt;(b) Linux is the only viable option. There&amp;#x27;s plenty of other operating systems, some even focus on security (starting with the list of existing microkernels).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pabloski</author><text>&amp;quot;Anticipating your questions: not even the slightest smell of Linux. All the popular operating systems aren’t designed with security in mind, so it’s simpler and safer to start from the ground up and do everything correctly.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It looks like a realistic assessment. General purpose operating systems ( at least the 3 most famous ones ) are built with ease of use in mind, not security. Even Torvalds admits it, saying that he sees performance as a top priority, and not security.&lt;p&gt;If Kaspersky OS is more secure or not, we will see in the future.</text></comment>