Re: hurd progress and bugs
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:44:24PM +0200, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote:
> OH! I forgot to say some things more....
>
> First, why Mach uses the same drivers that linux uses ? I saw this as
> a fast and ugly implementation. I don't know, but I think that there
> should be drivers specially written for the hurd instead using other
> OSs drivers.
SCSI is SCSI, no matter where you use it.
FreeBSD and Linux driverbase overlaps much.
NT and Win98 driverbase overlaps much. :-)
Drivers are the most portable part of OS.
Representation of drivers to userspace differs,
but their core code can be ported with very little changing.
What is big difference between Hurd and Linux, that SCSI should be treated
differently ?
(keyboard should, but that's other problem)
> Also, I've seen somewhere (correct me if this is not true) that Mach
> should be rewritten, don't remember why. But is somebody doing this?
> As hurd gets more code, it should be stronger to replace the current
> mach microkernel....
Currently Mach is a big strange pile of code that almost nobody want to touch.
People are not very sure if it would be better to keep Mach with some
changes (liku : modules support), take some better microkernel (is there any ?),
write some new (anyone has time and abilities ?) or maybe use some
completely "innovative" solution.
But nobody is doing that AFAIK.
Reply to: