> > > PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
> > > that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
> > > choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
> > > misguided.
> >
> > It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's
> > misguided or not. You may remember that Apple bought a little company
> > called NeXT a few years back. Well, that company's people had a lot
> > to do with the OS design of OS X and let's not forget the design of
> > NeXTStep.
>
> Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious
> microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD? I've never
> understood the point of that sort of use. It makes sense for a
> QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba style of architecture, but
> how does Mach help Apple, instead of using the bottom half of
> BSD as well as the top half?
Kernel threads out of the box?
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message