Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:39:18 +1100 From: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: 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: <20001217203917.A42764@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <85112.977020676@winston.osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800 References: <pat@jantar.org> <85112.977020676@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe > > that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the > > choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not > > misguided. > > It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's > misguided or not. You may remember that Apple bought a little company > called NeXT a few years back. Well, that company's people had a lot > to do with the OS design of OS X and let's not forget the design of > NeXTStep. 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? Not that there can't be a good reason. There probably is. I just haven't heard it. -- Andrew 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?20001217203917.A42764>