> As I remember, way back in the mists of 1990 when I first encountered a NeXT
> box, one of the principal reasons for selecting the Mach 2.x micro kernel was
> "mach messaging". This was a unified mechanism for almost all IPC both within
> one host or distributed over a network, where eg. socke
Andrew Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious
>microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD?
IIRC the Mac parts of Mac OS X run as another server beside BSD on top
of Mach.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You r
> As I remember, way back in the mists of 1990 when I first encountered a NeXT
> box, one of the principal reasons for selecting the Mach 2.x micro kernel was
> "mach messaging". This was a unified mechanism for almost all IPC both within
> one host or distributed over a network, where eg. socke
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
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
Bill Fumerola wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's
> > misguided or not. You may remember that Apple bought a little company
> > called NeXT a few years back. Well, that company's peo
> service environment -- I've been seriously considering looking at adapting
> FreeBSD to use netinfo also, given that it provides a time-tested model
> for configuration management (local and distributed). It probably needs
> some cleaning up in the security sense, and possibly rewriting, but it
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:02:56PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> That's great news -- I assume however that this is limited to the
> account directory service functionality, as opposed to the more general
> configuration parameters (login.conf equivs, etc)?
That's correct, at least for the near t
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:27:55PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > -- I've been seriously considering looking at adapting
> > FreeBSD to use netinfo also, given that it provides a time-tested model
> > for configuration management (local and distr
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:27:55PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> -- I've been seriously considering looking at adapting
> FreeBSD to use netinfo also, given that it provides a time-tested model
> for configuration management (local and distributed). It probably needs
> some cleaning up in the sec
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Andrew Reilly 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 doe
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
> > that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
> > choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
> > misguided.
>
> It's hardly arbi
> > Kernel threads out of the box?
>
> The Mach kernel makes use of a thread primitive and a task primitive;
> however, their BSD OS personality is largely single-threaded with
> something approximately equivilent to our Giant -- they refer to this as a
> "Funnel", through which access to the BSD
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
> Kernel threads out of the box?
The Mach kernel makes use of a thread primitive and a task primitive;
however, their BSD OS personality is largely single-threaded with
something approximately equivilent to our Giant -- they refer to this as a
"Funnel",
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
> > > PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
> > > that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
> > > choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
> > > misguided.
> >
> > It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still o
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:14:07AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> Patryk Zadarnowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Now that I think of it, there aren't many commercial microkernel
> >systems out there with the possible exception of QNX and lots of
> >little embedded toys.
>
> Mac OS X is based on Mac
> 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 bo
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
> > that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
> > choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
> > misguided.
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's
> misguided or not. You may remember that Apple bought a little company
> called NeXT a few years back. Well, that company's people had a lot
> to do with the O
> PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
> that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
> choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
> misguided.
It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's
mi
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patryk Zadarnowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Now that I think of it, there aren't many commercial microkernel
>> systems out there with the possible exception of QNX and lots of
>> little embedded toys.
> Mac OS X is based on M
Patryk Zadarnowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Now that I think of it, there aren't many commercial microkernel
>systems out there with the possible exception of QNX and lots of
>little embedded toys.
Mac OS X is based on Mach.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, "SteveB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SteveB> Sorry for such a basic question, but I have been looking and can't
SteveB> find the answer. Is FreeBSD as microkernel or monolithic kernel like
SteveB> Linux? Can someone point me to the answer/
It's a monolithic kernel, like Li
On 16-Dec-00 SteveB wrote:
>
> Sorry for such a basic question, but I have been looking and can't
> find the answer. Is FreeBSD as microkernel or monolithic kernel like
> Linux? Can someone point me to the answer/
Well, it's a monolithic kernel with a built in run-time linker that allows you
Sorry for such a basic question, but I have been looking and can't
find the answer. Is FreeBSD as microkernel or monolithic kernel like
Linux? Can someone point me to the answer/
TIA
Steve B.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of t
26 matches
Mail list logo
