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

Re: L4 instead of gnumach?

> 1. No one really wants to work on gnumach.
> 2. OSkit-mach is too slow. The COM interface in oskit is (IMO) too
> bloated (this is in regards to many people saying "use oskit-mach").

Do you mean relative to gnumach or just in general?  
Noone has reported anything about performance of oskit-mach to me.

Not that I am against using L4 or other kernels, but there is a lot of work
involved in that.

Reply to: