[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Samba

From: Kevin Musick <KMusick@teldar.com>
Subject: RE: Samba
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:31:37 -0700 

> I believe this is true of GNU Mach.  The Linux glue code is a giant bandaid.
> There is no SMP support.  No native PCI support.  User space device drivers
> have been disabled.  Yada, yada, yada.

  Then, why don't you improve it, if you really think GNU Mach sucks?
IMO, the Linux emulation is not so bad. Don't mistake me. The reason
why I say that is _not_ because I did some work on it, but because it
was (and is) a very practical solution. Even if GNU Mach would support
user space drivers, who could implement them? Note that neither Hurd
nor Mach is a vaporware. We should find a realistic solution.

> However, in general, Mach has
> already been used in commercial systems.  NextStep was fairly successful as
> a Unix desktop.  Apple's OS/X and OSF/1 are also Mach-based.  Rashid,
> Barrera, and other CMU members of the Mach project, who were lured away to
> Microsoft R & D, did many research projects with Mach.  They ported Mach to
> the Intel Paragon, supporting two thousand parallel processors and developed
> an enhanced virtual memory subsystem (Odin) for accommodating such massively
> parallel architectures.

  You are ignoring the fact that successful projects are based on Mach
2.5 but not Mach 3.0. AFAIK, there is no commercially successful
project which uses multiple servers on a microkernel, except for QNX.


Reply to: