Re: Mach independence
Ondrej Hurt <Ondrej.Hurt@seznam.cz> writes:
> I am interested if you really want HURD to be independent HIRD of
> Daemons or you are content with those mighty daemons being rather
> herd grazed by the Mach herder forever ;-) At this time it is not
> possible to port HURD to another microkernel without splitting its
> code base and this makes any porting efforts meaningless. L4-HURD
> seems to be dead for now because of this.
Hogwash! We already know how to manage the portability--IF a
microkernel supports the necessary features to make the Hurd work.
It's an open question if L4 does, because the kernel has some very
weak semantics in certain areas. But I'm certainly hopeful.
> HURD adopted many concepts from Mach. This should not be a problem
> (lets hope) but it must not depend on exact realization of these
> concepts (i.e. Mach API). HURD needs a thin layer (abstract wrapper)
> over Mach (this layer would be substantially thicker for other
> microkernels of course). This wrapper would only cover the portion of
> Mach services that HURD often uses.
Of course it needs such a thing, but the point is, it's *very* thin
indeed. The ports library is already such a layer for one part of the
system. The pager library is another layer. And so forth. Is there
some actual place where you think we are depending on more than a
naming issue?
Reply to: