> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] UMass Lowell - Fox 1512 Phone: 978-934-5347 Fax: 603-415-3645 Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. -- H. L. Mencken