Hi Jan, On 05/29/2017 10:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > But you may soon cite another example for how meaningless the > classification is in practice: > > "[...] This scheme does not fit into the traditional classification of > hypervisors [7] – it can be seen as a mixture of Type-1 and Type-2 > hypervisors: It runs on raw hardware like a bare-metal hypervisor > without an underlying system level, but still cannot operate without > Linux as a system aide to provide initialised hardware. Linux is used > as bootloader, but not for operation." > > From the accepted OSPERT17 paper of a student of us on the Jailhouse > hypervisor architecture. I'm looking forward to read that paper. I took a look at the Github repository. Sounds very interesting project. Is there some draft paper available somewhere? > Maybe I could motivate him writing about the > classification nonsense alone as well, but he is also very good engineer > and code contributor... ;) That would be nice. Really that type-1 type-2 thing is poisoning the discussion since too long now. The one that could debunk that myth would become famous and endlessly praised for having put a tombstone on that non-sense (<-- is that motivating enough?) > And if you want to do something good to your students: teach concepts by > practical examples, particularly the exceptions from textbook rules. ;) -- -- Sylvain Leroux -- sylvain@xxxxxxxxxxx -- http://www.chicoree.fr
