On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:52:14PM -0700, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > I was a bit surprised at your assertions about Mach and Hurd, too.
>
> I think that mach has a very interesting and clean api for IPC. The
> usage of ports everywhere makes it clean. Much more interesting than
> the linux k
--- Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 06:03:58AM -0700, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > > No it doesn't.
> > > No it isn't.
> >
> > Looks like you have been watching too much Monty Python :
> [...]
> > It is too boring to argue with you.
>
> Do you know AMS well
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 06:03:58AM -0700, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > No it doesn't.
> > No it isn't.
>
> Looks like you have been watching too much Monty Python :
[...]
> It is too boring to argue with you.
Do you know AMS well enough or are you just thin-skinned? ;)
I was a bit surprised a
On ven, 2003-10-17 at 15:03, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> Well, I might do that some time. RIght now I am happy to be able to
> compile without rebooting and installing all this stuff.
You can give the hurd a try without rebooting with bochs.
Snark on freenode
___
--- "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, I have been working on Hurd, porting the hurd subsystem to
>> the gcc under linux so that you can compile it. That will allow
>> us to use the introspector on it.
>
> Why not just port the introspector to GNU/Hurd, and run it i
> Well, I have been working on Hurd, porting the hurd subsystem to
> the gcc under linux so that you can compile it. That will allow
> us to use the introspector on it.
Why not just port the introspector to GNU/Hurd, and run it in
GNU/Hurd? You don't need to do ugly things (and useles) l
