On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:18 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Last but not least, the question might be: why not drop Mach alltogether > and instead create a dedicated microkernel for the Hurd? Indeed after > several failed attempts with porting to existing modern microkernels > (L4, Coyotos), most of the Hurd developers seem to have arrived at the > conclusion that having a microkernel specifically tailored for the > Hurd's needs is the only viable option really. The experimental Viengoos > kernel, which Neal created in the course of his current research work, > is precisely that: an attempt to address the problems found while trying > to implement the Hurd on various existing microkernels.
I am quite curious: why did porting to the modern microkernels fail? then come a question: what kind of microkernel does Hurd need? > > In any case, IMHO we have much more pressing issues than Mach's > shortcomings presently, and thus I don't consider work on new > microkernels the highest priority right now... (Definitely interesting > though.) but I think at least some bugs in Mach should be fixed. Zheng Da
