The earliest "Operating Systems" as we call them today were developed at General Motors. The system was a standard stack of punch cards that would be executed with every program to take are of environmental tasks, provide a standard library, and standard I/O functionality.
This system was built for the IBM701 in '56, but was used on all 40 IBM704's that were sold. It influence the development of a lot of early 50's and 60's OS's nobody ever heard of now-a-days. Namely the Michigan Terminal System, which was very big and never spoken of.
This was still a batch processing operating system. But it was a far cry from the automatic tape switching Univac had only 2 years earlier!
Literally a rump kernel.
The ultimate problem with rump kernels is looking into the future, we arrive back at Unix. Follow the thought experiment.
1) We reach a standard rump kernel for virtualization, that support most users needs.
2) Its declared an industry success and sees wide deployment.
3) In order to speed up its functionality hypermanagers are ran on native rump kernels.
4) In order to speed up its functionality hypermanagers have rump features built in.
5) Duplicate rump features exist in the hypermanager, and its (the hyper-manager's) own rump kernel.
6) rump kerenels and hypermanagers are re-merged to multi-process OS's to remove duplicate code and offer speed ups.
What we need is a more multi-process OS, not a multi-user + multi-processing OS.
TL;DR we are back pedaling.
"Lightweight" is a term that gets used a little too much these days, to the detriment of actual useful functionality.
If smartphones and Docker/LXC are teaching us anything, it's that the solution is to improve our operating systems and make them better at the things they were intended to do.
This seems like mostly speculation on a mailing list, but I believe it's worth pointing out that this speculation doesn't do justice to what rump kernels can already offer. It would be nice to see other OS developers push models like this, to facilitate code reuse in widely varying contexts, instead of just "hypervisors".
Follow the thought experiment:
1) valarauca1 comments on rump
... [stuff goes here]
n) valarauca1 is dies
Is there a point to _anything_, if you use "following to logical conclusion" as measuring stick? We can't tell what will come of this work yet.
But a lot of the "Rump Kernel" theory sounds like.
"I need a car with less features, and high performance."
"Okay, lets start with re-inventing the wheel, its the logical place to start. We'll build ground up and move from there."
"I was gonna start pulling the head lights off."
"Nonsense! We must start fresh!"
There's only "a point to anything" in the context of external goals. When trying to satisfy one of those goals, it's almost always beneficial to take your assumptions and logic to their conclusion, because that's what reality, and (more relevantly) groups of people, do with their logic.