Re: mach is dead...isn't it?

To: Catalin <ady982@ploiesti.astral.ro>
Cc: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: mach is dead...isn't it?
From: Marcus Brinkmann <brinkmd@gluck.debian.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:14:24 -0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 20020805221424.GB27171@gluck.debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 3D4EEAA7.9090805@ploiesti.astral.ro>
References: <[🔎] 3D4EDBFB.3060001@ic.ac.uk> <[🔎] 20020805210245.GA10758@nisa.net> <[🔎] 3D4EEAA7.9090805@ploiesti.astral.ro>

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:14:15AM +0300, Catalin wrote:
> From what I see it is planned to stop developing the mach mircokernel 
> and use L4 instead.
> Why are you still asting your time with mach???
> 

If we always ever only work on the next best thing we will never have
a system that you can actually run.  BTW, a lot of the work we put into
the current system directly benefits other future systems, too.  For
example, the console I am writing for GNU Mach 2 right now will also be 
needed in a Hurd system running on L4.

Thanks,
Marcus

Reply to:

References:
- compiling new linux drivers into gnumach
  - From: Jeremy Bryant <jeremy.bryant@ic.ac.uk>
- Re: compiling new linux drivers into gnumach
  - From: Jeff Bailey <jbailey@nisa.net>
- mach is dead...isn't it?
  - From: Catalin <ady982@ploiesti.astral.ro>

Prev by Date: Re: mach is dead...isn't it?
Next by Date: Re: compiling new linux drivers into gnumach
Previous by thread: Re: mach is dead...isn't it?
Next by thread: Re: mach is dead...isn't it?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread