Eirik Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | | There is something to be said for microkernels | they allow for a lot less headaches with kernel | development, and it could drastically improve plan 9's | portability, a key feature.
"microkernels" cover a broad range. mach is bigger than the plan 9 kernel. bigger than the linux kernel, even. and linux is 90% device drivers. i hold out some hope for l4. | Also, the multi-server approach taken by the GNU/Hurd | is innovative and well suited to SMP and distributed | environments. what's innovative about the hurd? unless i'm missing something plan9 fileservers are isomorphic with hurd daemons, conceptually. the major difference being, in the hurd a server exports a random interface, in plan9 a server exports a filesystem. hurd isn't even an os. it needs a microkernel. However, the FSF has a role and the GNU | project is (and should be) a side project for them. | The real problem with it, though, is that C (like plan | 9) was designed with portability as a major feature, | and the GNU extensions in GCC aren't helping | portability. It's kinda like microsoft's C#, they may | be wonderful features, but you missed the whole point.
