I was just wondering if anyone has done any work on implmenting a POSIX shared
memory implmentation or porting pppd. If not I was hoping to do some work on
one of these (haven't decided which one yet).
Dan
--
Daniel E. Bauma
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 09:28:43AM +0100, Chris Lingard wrote:
> diff -Naur libgc-5.0.alpha4/debian/rules new/debian/rules
> --- libgc-5.0.alpha4/debian/rules Tue Apr 18 18:34:15 2000
> +++ new/debian/rules Mon Apr 17 19:37:51 2000
> @@ -16,6 +16,14 @@
> # disable all threading
> THREADS :=
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 12:15:14PM -0700, Kevin Musick wrote:
> I have a fresh install of the latest Hurd, and I cannot get the Apache
> server to install from the Debian package. I successfully installed the
> mime-support package, but apache-common fails. It tells me that libc0.2 is
> not confi
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:56:58PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Mark Kettenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >8.
> >Does it make any sense to move most device drivers (scsi/ide)
> >from Mach to user-space.
> >I suppose than PCI bus etc. would still need to be in kernel.
> >
Title: RE: Some Hurd and Mach programming questions
> > I suppose that you'll always need some basic support for a
> > disk device in the Mach kernel. Some other device drivers might be
> > moved out to
>
> Why would PCI bus have to be in the kernel? Why would you need support
> for a dis
From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Hurd and Mach programming questions
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:37:04 +0200
> How much of IPCing really needs MIG and
> couldn't be done by some set cpp macros or other way that
> don't need inventing a new language (.defs) ?
It is o
Mark Kettenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>8.
>Does it make any sense to move most device drivers (scsi/ide)
>from Mach to user-space.
>I suppose than PCI bus etc. would still need to be in kernel.
>
> I suppose that you'll always need some basic support for a disk device
> in the Ma
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 02:19:40PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:24:13 +0200
>From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Mach/MIG related :
>
>3.
>How good is MIG ?
>What special, non-obvious features are really in use if
>compared to i
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 02:28:14PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I don't know what "current" means to you, though. All Hurd servers are
> multithreaded and usually serve multiple users/processes.
Reading Marks reply, I am enlightened. Forget this part of my message :)
Marcus
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 01:24:13PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> 1.
> How accurate are 1987-1989 CMU Mach papers if GNU Mach is considered.
Depends entirely on what specific issue you look at.
For example, the Hurd has no nameserver, but it has (still)
cthreads, and the client/server basics
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:24:13 +0200
From: Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mach/MIG related :
1.
How accurate are 1987-1989 CMU Mach papers if GNU Mach is considered.
I'm not entirely sure. Some of these papers are probably discussing
things about Mach 2.5 and may be s
Mach/MIG related :
1.
How accurate are 1987-1989 CMU Mach papers if GNU Mach is considered.
2.
Are filesystem protocol and other basic client-to-server protocols
hard-coded in Mach or reside completely in Hurd ?
3.
How good is MIG ?
What special, non-obvious features are really in use if
compare
12 matches
Mail list logo
