On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> 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?
What I'd really like to know, and haven't had a chance to investigate
much, is to what extent the Mach primitives are used by their userland
environment. I.e., does their software really just use the BSD ABI/API,
or does it rely on the Mach IPC primitives for performance in their
graphics subsystem. If it relies only on the BSD interface, that gives
them a path towards migrating more in the direction of a pure FreeBSD
kernel, if they desire, or swapping it out with whatever they choose, as
well as leveraging a lot of other work (in particular, security work)
based on UNIX-like ABI/API's. If they do rely on the Mach primitives,
then that may be less easy.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
