Re: mach deficiencies
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Michael Bacarella wrote:
>
> > The point is that there has been considerable research done since Rashid
> > left for Microsoft, particularly with L4 at Dresden University, concerning
> > microkernel performance, thereby showing up more clearly some of the
> > advantages and disadvantages.
>
> Not to imply that just because something is written in assembler means
> that it's always smaller and faster, but, it's written entirely in
> assembler! Of course it'd be small and fast. :)
>
> (Unless I'm missing something)
>
> > Note that:
> > a) L4 is actually a small microkernel;
> > b) OSKit has been showing off that it is useful to create an OS
> > infrastructure surrounding memory allocation schemes in order to be
> > supportive of specialized languages;
> > c) Most early microkernels seem to have been monolithic systems, unlike
> > Hurd.
>
> I think that theoretically, the Hurd would be much better off ditching
> GNUMach for L4, but there's a lot stopping something like that.
IMHO we'd be better off with Fiasco (written in C++ (which is kindof a
downer), but GPL, and more portable).
> We're effectively throwing away a lot of work by ditching GNUMach. It
> is always smart to get rid of something that isn't working NOW than it is
> to wait awhile until you're positive that it isn't working, but it's
> difficult to go on something like that because not everyone agrees that
> GNUMach isn't working. Although it seems that way so far.
<snip>
> Possibly some better publicity for switching, because we's need people!
>
> But, I have no status here, so I can shut up now.
I'm trying to get some time to have a try at porting the odd server. The
IPC stuff is the biggest change - some considerable re-writing will be
needed here.
I've had a couple of offers of help already, which is a start, I guess.
Matthew
mad as ever :-s
Reply to: