No way! Mach still hasn't even hit its stride. It is designed
for massive multiprocessing scalability across thousands and
millions of nodes. Unfortunately Hurd hasn't advanced enough
yet for it to really go online. Theoretically Hurder's could
link their machines into one humongous supercomputer v
--- "B. Douglas Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No way! Mach still hasn't even hit its stride. It is designed
> for massive multiprocessing scalability across thousands and
> millions of nodes. Unfortunately Hurd hasn't advanced enough
> yet for it to really go online. Theoretically Hurder's
commence B. Douglas Hilton quotation:
> In that regard L4 would tend to actually be a better match for the
> Hurd design philosophy: Hurd of Unix Replacing Daemons, where "Unix"
> referred to the kernel, not the OS.
I believe that's "HIRD of Unix-Replacing Daemons", where HIRD is "HURD
of Interf
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:35:56PM -0400, B. Douglas Hilton wrote:
AFAIK, L4 just doesn't have this capability. It is faster in a
uniprocessing scenario, but cannot scale in its current state.
The L4/Hurd project is just trying to leverage existing code
from Hurd so that the
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:14:15AM +0300, Catalin wrote:
> From what I see it is planned to stop developing the mach mircokernel
> and use L4 instead.
> Why are you still asting your time with mach???
>
If we always ever only work on the next best thing we will never have
a system that you can a
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:35:56PM -0400, B. Douglas Hilton wrote:
> No way! Mach still hasn't even hit its stride. It is designed
> for massive multiprocessing scalability across thousands and
> millions of nodes. Unfortunately Hurd hasn't advanced enough
> yet for it to really go online.
I don't
On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 22:14, Catalin wrote:
>
> From what I see it is planned to stop developing the mach mircokernel
> and use L4 instead.
> Why are you still asting your time with mach???
Precisely where did you see *any* of the Hurd developers say that
development of Mach or the Hurd for Mach
Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:11:39PM +0100, Jeremy Bryant wrote:
Is it at all possible to try and patch up drivers this way? Should I
just wait for OSKit Mach?
While you're welcome to hack drivers into gnumach, I suspect that you
won't see a new package for it. Can you try th
8 matches
Mail list logo
