Re: mach deficiencies

[Pontus Lidman <pontus@lysator.liu.se>]

On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> 
[snip]
> > Not to imply that just because something is written in assembler means
> > that it's always smaller and faster, but, it's written entirely in
> > assembler! Of course it'd be small and fast. :)

Written entirely in assembler? Sounds a bit difficult to port...

> > (Unless I'm missing something)
> > 
> > > Note that:
> > > a) L4 is actually a small microkernel;
> > > b) OSKit has been showing off that it is useful to create an OS
> > >    infrastructure surrounding memory allocation schemes in order to be
> > >    supportive of specialized languages;
> > > c) Most early microkernels seem to have been monolithic systems, unlike
> > >    Hurd.
> > 
> > I think that theoretically, the Hurd would be much better off ditching
> > GNUMach for L4, but there's a lot stopping something like that.
> 
> IMHO we'd be better off with Fiasco (written in C++ (which is kindof a
> downer), but GPL, and more portable).

I'd like to make a pitch then for Fluke which seems to descend from Mach
so porting the Hurd might be easier than to other microkernels. It's also
GPL. And I like the Recursive Virtual Machine idea. 

Maybe you guys could provide URL's to L4 / Fiasco so I could have a look
at those?
 
> > Possibly some better publicity for switching, because we's need people!

I think the kernel issue needs to be resolved because recruiting people
to an OS project where the kernel is a known dead end will not be easy.

> > But, I have no status here, so I can shut up now.

Same goes for me :)

Regards,

Pontus