To elaborate, seL4 claims to be the fastest kernel around[0], a claim that remains unchallenged.
To put it into context, the difference in IPC speed is such that you'd need an order of magnitude more IPC for a multiserver system based on seL4 to actually be slower than Linux.
A multiserver design would imply increased IPC use, but not an order of magnitude.
[0]: https://trustworthy.systems/publications/full_text/Elphinsto...
From an observer on the sidelines: there was no namecalling.
He said you trolled, not that you ate a troll. The distinction is important.
Even the best of us troll, sometimes. (Not claiming you did btw, just that there was no name calling.)
> seL4 is the world’s fastest operating system kernel designed for security and safety
Linux is arguably not designed for security and safety but it blows seL4 out of the water when it comes to performance. There’s a reason it only gets used in contexts where security is critical; I would have expected that you would be aware of this considering you were the one who is promoting it.
Can I run Firefox or PostgreSQL on seL4? Or another real-world program of comparable complexity? And how does the performance of that compare to Linux or BSD?
That's really the only benchmark that matters; it's not hard to be fast if your kernel is simple, but simple is often also less useful. Terry Davis claimed TempleOS was faster than Linux, and in some ways he was right too. But TempleOS is also much more limited than Linux and, in the end, not all that useful – even Terry ran it inside a VM.
I've heard these sort of claims about seL4 before, and I've tried to look up some more detailed information about seL4 before, and I've never really found anything convincing on the topic beyond "TempleOS can do loads more context switches than Linux!" type stuff.
