Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:11:01 +0000 From: Gustavo Vieira Goncalves Coelho Rios <gustavo@ifour.com.br> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>, Patryk Zadarnowski <pat@jantar.org>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, SteveB <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel type Message-ID: <3A3CD785.A4F5E644@ifour.com.br> References: <6134.977051878@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > > Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious > > microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD? I've never > > understood the point of that sort of use. It makes sense for a > > QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba style of architecture, but > > how does Mach help Apple, instead of using the bottom half of > > BSD as well as the top half? > > That's actually a much better question and one I can't really answer. > > One theory might be that the NeXT people were simply Microkernel > bigots for no particularly well-justified reason and that is simply > that. Another theory might be that they were able to deal with the > machine-dependent parts of Mach far more easily given its > comparatively minimalist design and given their pre-existing expertise > with it. Another theory, sort of related to the previous one, is that > Apple has some sort of plans for the future which they're not > currently sharing where Mach plays some unique role. > > - Jordan > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message I tried QNX! If microkernel is low performance, why QNX is so fast? It makes no sense to me! Is there any choice on QNX beats a freebsd server in , say, http server ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A3CD785.A4F5E644>