Jordan Hubbard wrote:
>
> > 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.
Does the older MacOS compatibility mode (is this the "blue box"?) run
on the BSD-Lite server, or directly on Mach? That seems a likely
starting point.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
