Re: Microkernels (was Re: Sparc port?)
"M.C. Vernon" wrote:
> I (and some other Cambridge people) am of the opinion that the current
> hurd doesn't get the maximum benefit out of it's microkernel design, and
> one of the reasons is that its microkernel is not very micro. Sure, Mach
> is smaller than linux, but it's still pretty big. I think this is because
> it tries to do too much: things like IDE, SCSI and so on should IMHO be
> servers: the microkernel should do as little as possible
Not that my opinion should count for much, but I am inclined to agree with the
above.
QNX, a commercial/proprietary microkernel O/S does very little else other than
message passing. Whilst it aims to service a different market (it is a real-time
O/S), it is an excellent MK design (In my opinion at least). Hurd has the
potential to go beyond QNX in terms of overall usefulness but a large
MK does not seem to do anything of value towards achieving this.
Reply to: