> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
