From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 17 3:18:24 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 17 03:18:18 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF8237B400 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBHBHww06138; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:17:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: "Andrew Reilly" Cc: Patryk Zadarnowski , Tony Finch , SteveB , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel type In-Reply-To: Message from "Andrew Reilly" of "Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:39:18 +1100." <20001217203917.A42764@gurney.reilly.home> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:17:58 -0800 Message-ID: <6134.977051878@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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