Re: mach deficiencies
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> > 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. :)
Written entirely in assembler? Sounds a bit difficult to port...
> > (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).
I'd like to make a pitch then for Fluke which seems to descend from Mach
so porting the Hurd might be easier than to other microkernels. It's also
GPL. And I like the Recursive Virtual Machine idea.
Maybe you guys could provide URL's to L4 / Fiasco so I could have a look
> > Possibly some better publicity for switching, because we's need people!
I think the kernel issue needs to be resolved because recruiting people
to an OS project where the kernel is a known dead end will not be easy.
> > But, I have no status here, so I can shut up now.
Same goes for me :)