[stable-point]

This is called a Unikernel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unikernel

> Unikernels are specialised, single address space machine images constructed by using library operating systems. A developer selects, from a modular stack, the minimal set of libraries which correspond to the OS constructs required for their application to run. These libraries are then compiled with the application and configuration code to build sealed, fixed-purpose images (unikernels) which run directly on a hypervisor or hardware without an intervening OS such as Linux or Windows.

[runeks]

That is correct. I guess what I wanted to point out is that it would be cool if Linux could become this - a library that you can compile into your program, rather than a program in which you run your programs (an OS).

[justincormack]

There is a library port of Linux, lkl https://github.com/lkl

[paulddraper]

Linux is purposefully and by design monolithic.

However, you could base your unikernal capabilities on the same interface (like POSIX).

Current unikernals: http://unikernel.org/projects/

[digi_owl]

The GPL would likely give any legal department pause for thought in that regard.

[digi_owl]

Or as i like to call them, DOS-in-a-can...

[nickpsecurity]

That's not fair given DOS was 100% unsafe in architecture and implementation language. The Ocaml or Rust ones are more like the Pascal OS's (eg Solo) with a certain amount of safety built-in. I agree on the minimal part but the overall metaphor doesn't fit.

[paulddraper]

DOS like Denial of Service? Or DOS like MS-DOS?

Either one doesn't make sense to me.

[digi_owl]

the latter.

DOS was a downright minimal layer of code between the software and the hardware.

Little to no memory protection etc.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...