Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:17:58 -0800 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au> 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: <6134.977051878@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au> of "Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:39:18 %2B1100." <20001217203917.A42764@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6134.977051878>