Re: Hurd and the Alpha
I think if we're going to take the time to port /anything/ to Alpha. it
would probably be a good time to cut one more part of Mach into user
space. I reccomend that if we port Mach to Alpha, or use a new
microkernel, we cut hardware support out of the kernel and put it into a
server, like the NT HAL. Whadya think?
Scott Fenton
David Andrews wrote:
>
> [Disclaimer: I can only *spell* Mach]
>
> Once upon a time there was some discussion on the list concerning the
> deficiencies of Mach, and the attractiveness of certain other microkernels.
> The consensus was something like:
> "Let's not waste time putting up another microkernel just
> yet. Let's get the Hurd running first."
>
> I guess that's probably sound advice -- if we're only talking about a
> single platform (x86). But it seems to me that if Greg wants an Alpha
> Hurd, and he has the wherewithal to undertake this, then it would be foolish
> to port Mach in light of our nascent desire to replace it.
>
> Comments? Corrections? Catcalls? Brickbats?
>
> --
> David Andrews
> A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
> dba@duda.com
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: