Feel free to submit a PR I will happily accept it.
Toro started in 2006 more or less. I lost the .org domain so I had to move to the .io.
As far as you provide the bindings, you can compile it with an application built in any language. There are in the repo a few examples with C programs.
> Both those "separations" is not something Toro provides on its own; the Toro unikernel would totally be under the control of the host, from what I can tell. That said, what Toro (or any unikernel, really) does is…
I can add that. Thanks!
Toro is just a library OS that allows you to build an application and deploy it as a VM without the OS. Toro acts as the OS. Different that other unikernels, Toro is not meant to be POSIX compliant. The idea is to…
> Suppose you control the entire stack though, from the bare metal up. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but) Toro doesn't seem to run on real hardware, you have to run it atop QEMU or Firecracker. In that case, what difference…
Feel free to submit a PR I will happily accept it.
Toro started in 2006 more or less. I lost the .org domain so I had to move to the .io.
As far as you provide the bindings, you can compile it with an application built in any language. There are in the repo a few examples with C programs.
> Both those "separations" is not something Toro provides on its own; the Toro unikernel would totally be under the control of the host, from what I can tell. That said, what Toro (or any unikernel, really) does is…
I can add that. Thanks!
Toro is just a library OS that allows you to build an application and deploy it as a VM without the OS. Toro acts as the OS. Different that other unikernels, Toro is not meant to be POSIX compliant. The idea is to…
> Suppose you control the entire stack though, from the bare metal up. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but) Toro doesn't seem to run on real hardware, you have to run it atop QEMU or Firecracker. In that case, what difference…