That depends on your definition of what a new microkernel is. If
the changes you need to make are very fundamental, the result is
arguably a new microkernel.
New in the sense: Drop GNU Mach, use something else. Changing GNU
Mach to suit our needs so that it becomes vastly different is n
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:43:56PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>There are some problems with Mach which seem very hard or even
>impossible to fix without using a new microkernel.
>
> Impossible it is not, very hard it is or might be, but so is porting
> to a new kernel, which is infact
At Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:45:05 +0100,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A couple of years ago, Marcus (and some others), more and more exposed
> to the problems in Mach, made the claim that Hurd/Mach has no future,
> and further developement should be directed to a port to a modern
> microkernel like L4.
I'm looking for improve my skills and I would like to help
too. What can I do? ;)
It all depends on what your skills are, but running through the bug
reports in the bug tracker, and double checking what still happens,
and what doesn't is a good start. Making proper bug testcases is also
a
On 12/21/05, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless someone has problem with me or the points listed I can volunteer on working and reporting about the first two tasks, that is: * Clean up the Code. (Assigned to: We need YOU here!) * Update the core architecture and d
There are some problems with Mach which seem very hard or even
impossible to fix without using a new microkernel.
Impossible it is not, very hard it is or might be, but so is porting
to a new kernel, which is infact even harder.
For that reason, we are looking at other microkernels. We
Hi,
> please excuse my ignorance, but what's the Status of GNU Mach? I heard
> the L4 microkernel is favored for the Hurd. Do you guys try to catch
> up?
Well, the question is, favored by whom? It's actually quite a long
story, and also I weren't around to get all of it first hand; but I'll
try t
please excuse my ignorance, but what's the Status of GNU Mach? I
heard the L4 microkernel is favored for the Hurd. Do you guys try
to catch up?
GNU Mach has always been favoured over L4 since it has always worked.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bu
Unless someone has problem with me or the points listed I can
volunteer on working and reporting about the first two tasks, that
is:
* Clean up the Code. (Assigned to: We need YOU here!)
* Update the core architecture and drivers. (Assigned to: We need YOU
here!)
Please st
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:38:50AM +0100, Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote:
> Hello list,
Hi,
> please excuse my ignorance, but what's the Status of GNU Mach?
GNU Mach is currently the only microkernel which is supported by the Hurd.
That is: If you want to run Hurd, you need Mach. That may change,
Hello list,
please excuse my ignorance, but what's the Status of GNU Mach?
I heard the L4 microkernel is favored for the Hurd. Do you guys
try to catch up?
Kind regards,
Leslie
--
PGP-KID: 0x52D70289
pgpa1pTuqUMtq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_
11 matches
Mail list logo
