Re: Samba

[Neal H Walfield <neal@walfield.org>]

> Neal H Warfield wrote:
          ^ Is this suppose to be flame bait?  I am not amused.

> I'm assuming that the hurd library(ies) that implements Mach services simply
> runs in user space.

I was referring to the ipc, which takes place entirely in the kernel.

>                      Consequently, for certain operations, say perhaps an
> IPC send() or recv(), that a context switch would not be required.

Why do you say that?  If you have to change tasks, you will still need to
trap to the kernel;  the server and the client will (likely have different
uids so cannot touch each other's page tables etc).  Correct me if I am
wrong.

> 
> > It is my feelings that to use an exokernel will require nearly
> > all of the mach kernel to be reimplemented over it
> 
> Agreed.  I am not dissatisfied with Mach,

I am throughly dissatisfied with Mach; it has many shortcomings that
need to be addressed before it will ever be ready for end users. I
believe that they will only be fixed by 64-bit hardware.

>                                            although it is an aging
> microkernel and if there were significant, tangible benefits to the end user
> of an alternative design, I think it's worth speculation.  I like the Hurd
> and I applaud its architecture over more monolithic systems such as Linux.
> End users, however, won't care about conceptual superiority -- they'll look
> for real world justification for choosing a particular platform.

To quote Roland for a minute:
We're way ahead of you here.  The Hurd has always been on the cutting edge
of not being good for anything.

-Neal

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Walfield                                              neal@walfield.org
UMass Lowell - Fox 1512                                  Phone: 978-934-5347
                                                           Fax: 603-415-3645
Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
                -- H. L. Mencken