&gt; A. Drop all efforts at rebuilding UNIX in language X.<p>... OK, but then you say &quot;full POSIX&quot; later. So how does that differ?<p>&gt; B. Get a user-mode version of Linux running on it with user-space drivers on microkernel for one, easily-acquired board.<p>How is this relevant to what happens later? The whole goal is to not rely on the Linux kernel.<p>&gt; C. Redirect safe language efforts on creating a secure runtime on the microkernel.<p>There aren&#x27;t &quot;safe language efforts&quot;. There is a safe language that already exists, and the effort has already been expended to make that exist. The project is creating a secure runtime on the microkernel using that safe language.<p>&gt; D. Create middleware tools along lines of Protocol Buffers, ZeroMQ, or LANGSEC stuff<p>You mean like serde? This is already done for the Rust ecosystem.<p>&gt; E. Begin on a POSIX-like runtime whose components can be stripped on a case-by-case basis. Focus on syscalls used by critical libraries and services first.<p>How is this not what this project is doing?<p>&gt; F. The current goal of full POSIX. 99% dont make it to E. If they get here, then great. If to E, then we get at least some apps. If to C and D, then we at least have trustworthy runtime.<p>... in other words, exactly what the project is doing?