On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > > > > Secondly, the microkernel. My understanding is that it's a good thing > > because the micro kernel becomes a generic layer to talk to the > > hardware and everything else sits on top. This is more flexible if you > > want something else to sit on top. I've also heard it isn't as > > efficient as a purpose built kernel. > > > > You have heard correctly. In fact, some hurd pundits are saying that mach > isn't a very good microkernel.. but, it has provided and admirable proof > of concept.
that reminds me the minix/linux discussion.
