Re: Fw: Mach, a but choise ?

[Paul Emsley <paule@chem.gla.ac.uk>]

>>>>> "Ezequiel" == Ezequiel Reyes <ezequiel@net.cedipad.com.cu> writes:

    Ezequiel>  I concluded that Mach was I wonderful idea to base an
    Ezequiel> OS on, despite opinions (like Linus,s saying it was
    Ezequiel> idealistic and very slow).

	I don't recall him saying that.  10 years ago kernel efficiency
      was a real issue.  Now it is not.

    Ezequiel> Did he mean, the mistake being the time they lost
    Ezequiel> waiting for the release of Mach to free software or was
    Ezequiel> he speaking about Mach being a "technical mistake" ?

	IMHO, the mistake was nothing to do with microkernel per se.
      Designing and implementing an "aggressively parallel" kernel was
      difficult and took a long time. The problem was a delay that it
      allowed Linux to exist.  

	Paul.


-- 
Paul.Emsley@chem.gla.ac.uk   
 http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/~paule