Mach was our original microkernel, which we enhanced to create gnumach.
Darwin is the base of Mac OS X, which is built around Mach and was not
released at the begining of the Hurd project. Indeed, I don't even think
that it was /planned/ at that point.
> 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.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org