Hi Jotish,

Can any one tell me the advantages of genode 12.08 over fiasco microkernel. Specifically in terms of secure OS point of view which one is better.

I suppose you are referring to Fiasco.OC? Strictly speaking, comparing Genode with Fiasco.OC is comparing apples with oranges. Fiasco.OC is a kernel whereas Genode is user-land. Both are complimentary, and indeed, can be combined. Fiasco.OC is one of the options that can be used as base platform of Genode.

Just guessing, but maybe, your question was actually referring to the combination of Fiasco.OC with the L4 runtime environment (L4re)? So how does Genode stacks up compared with L4re? I am afraid that I cannot answer this question in a concise way. There are many differences. The answer of which one is "better" would depend mostly on your specific needs. Furthermore, as one of the original authors of Genode, I tend to be biased. Anyway, here are some points that you might take as a start to investigate further:

* L4re is tied to Fiasco.OC whereas Genode can be used on a wide variety of different kernels. The developers of L4re may argue that L4re is a better fit for Fiasco.OC because L4re was developed in orchestration with the kernel. Where Genode needs abstractions to accommodate different kernels, L4re can use the Fiasco.OC kernel API in a more straight-forward way. On the other hand, by using Genode, it is possible to switch between kernels at different stages of development and deployment. So it offers more flexibility.

* Genode has a rigid architecture. The system is fundamentally built on the idea of a recursive tree of processes. L4re does not have such an architectural idea as an intrinsic part of the system. Most of Genode's unique solutions to problems such as its resource-management and configuration concept stem from its architecture.

* The functionality of both user lands differs. L4re is strong with regard to supporting different ARM platforms. On the other hand, Genode offers a lot of 3rd-party software such as Qt4, Gallium3D, and native device drivers.

* The L4re developers regard the use L4Linux as a fundamental ingredient for the system. For example, L4Linux is used as host for device drivers. With Genode, we see virtualization as suitable interim solution for using software that is not yet available on Genode. But the ultimate goal is to have all functionality running as native Genode components. For example, we develop the Noux runtime to execute GNU software directly on Genode instead of relying on an L4Linux instance.

* The mode of development is very different. Genode is developed at GitHub (code repositories, issue tracker). The development is completely transparent. There are official releases every three months, accompanied with comprehensive release notes (see http://genode.org/documentation/release-notes). In contrast, snapshots of L4re happen to be released at pretty irregular intervals with no public documentation of changes.

You see, I'm presenting Genode in a positive light. That's because I am pretty dedicated about it. Please take the information above with that in mind.

Cheers Norman