On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 08:55:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 05:20:07PM -0700, David Brown wrote:
HURD lost it's momentum when Linux came out. Suddenly there was no need
for it. Whereas before people might want to run it, just because it was
the only free thing there was. Once Linux came on the scene, followed by
various BSDs, HURD had to do something quite different to be useful.
Yes but why didn't Linux kill off the open source *BSDs as well?
Your argument would imply they should have tapered off too.
The BSDs had a solid foundation, the issues were obnoxious issues with AT&T
and the license for the code. Very suddenly, lots of well-used code
suddenly became available.
HURD has never been in a state where it was very useful for anything, other
than use by people who want to poke around with HURD. I'm not sure it is
every very good at that.
Also, Mach is far from small or simple.
Hmmm...is that true of all microkernels or just Mach? Hopefully there
is one elegant simple microkernel out there.
L4 definitely takes a different approach. I think Mach didn't end up being
a micro-enough of a micro-kernel. It did introduce (or at least make
popular) some ideas of memory management that are now common practice (such
as copy-on-write page faulting). MacOS is based on Mach, so I doubt it is
going to go away any time soon.
David
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
