Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:30:54 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, 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: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001217122839.48123C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20001217203917.A42764@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Andrew Reilly 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? What I'd really like to know, and haven't had a chance to investigate much, is to what extent the Mach primitives are used by their userland environment. I.e., does their software really just use the BSD ABI/API, or does it rely on the Mach IPC primitives for performance in their graphics subsystem. If it relies only on the BSD interface, that gives them a path towards migrating more in the direction of a pure FreeBSD kernel, if they desire, or swapping it out with whatever they choose, as well as leveraging a lot of other work (in particular, security work) based on UNIX-like ABI/API's. If they do rely on the Mach primitives, then that may be less easy. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services 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?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001217122839.48123C-100000>