Re: GNU quality
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> > Secondly, the microkernel. My understanding is that it's a good thing
> > because the micro kernel becomes a generic layer to talk to the
> > hardware and everything else sits on top. This is more flexible if you
> > want something else to sit on top. I've also heard it isn't as
> > efficient as a purpose built kernel.
> You have heard correctly. In fact, some hurd pundits are saying that mach
> isn't a very good microkernel.. but, it has provided and admirable proof
> of concept.
that reminds me the minix/linux discussion.