Re: Mach Kernels
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> R Joseph Wright wrote:
> >
> > What is the big advantage of using a mach microkernel? Is it used
> > because the developers didn't want to reinvent the wheel and thus chose
> > to use a preexisting platform from which to begin a new os?
>
> AFAIK, yes. But Mach also offers a rich set of semantics to work from.
> However, the Hurd itself is mostly microkernel independent and could be
> ported
> to other microkernels.
>
> > Or is it because it has special stability features? I know the hurd is
> > said to be crash-proof. And apple's new os x runs on a mach kernel,
> > doesn't it? They claim it is crash-proof. Are they doing a similar
> > thing with os x as the hurd?
>
> Note that all other mach based OS are single server, while the Hurd is a
> multi server
> OS.
What exactly is multi-server? What multiple *things* are being served
that on other os'es are being singly served?
>
> No operating system is crash-proof, because of bugs. Also, the Hurd does
> not handle out
> of ressources (out of memory, out of disk space) conditions gracefully.
> Apart from that,
> if one non-essential Hurd server dies (crashes), the Hurd will survive
> though. Maybe
> this is what you mean.
Pardon my vagueness :} .By crash-proof I suppose I mean if one program
goes down, it won't take others with it. But I've also read that many
components of the system have been moved into user space where the
ordinary user can interact with them, even fully customize or even
<insert profanity here> up their own space without affecting other
users.
--
R Joseph Wright
*I merely took the energy it takes to pout
and wrote some blues --Duke Ellington*
Reply to: