Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think that definition is a bit too broad and too narrow to be useful.

For too narrow: you might have a security focused OS that includes everything like a TCP/IP stack etc, but perhaps doesn't allow arbitrary binaries by construction. (Eg it might only allow binaries that come with a proof of innocence, or some other restriction that's harsh enough to lose the 'arbitrary' rating.)

For too broad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_machine would make almost any software that was written sloppily enough into an OS.



Obviously, "capable of running arbitrary binaries, but with a check inside exec() to allow only specific binaries run" counts as "capable of running arbitrary binaries".


Yes, perhaps a more specific example would be better.

Imagine some embedded application, eg in car, that has a network stack, graphics drivers etc, but can only run built-in functionality.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: