Could someone explain what the differences between, Mach, Mach, GNU
Mach and Darwin are?
Why did you choose GNU Mach?
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 06:04:10 +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
>> 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.
- Re: Samba
- From: SCOTT FENTON <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- RE: Samba
- From: OKUJI Yoshinori <email@example.com>