On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Wintermute wrote: > As I read more and more about Hurd.. I still can't stop thinking > "WHY?".. in a couple hundred more revisions.. the Linux kernel may well > come close to being a microkernel. What are the clear cut benefits? > (Just a few simple lines please.. no dissertations.. I'd as a professor > of computer science for that...)
I'm no expert on kernel architectures, but this fragment I snipped from http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-paper.html seems the most interesting aspect to me: "A multi-server divides the kernel functionality up into logical blocks with well-defined interfaces. Properly done, it is easier to make changes and add functionality. So most multi-server projects do somewhat better. Much more of the system is pageable. You can debug the system more easily. You can test new system components without interfering with other users. But the wall between user and system remains; no user can cross it without special privilege. The GNU Hurd, by contrast, is designed to make the area of system code as limited as possible. Programs are required to communicate only with a few essential parts of the kernel; the rest of the system is replaceable dynamically. Users can use whatever parts of the remainder of the system they want, and can easily add components themselves for other users to take advantage of. No mutual trust need exist in advance for users to use each other's services, nor does the system become vulnerable by trusting the services of arbitrary users." Seems neat to be able to hack the kernel without hacking the kernel... TL -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
