On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Michael Bacarella wrote: > > > The point is that there has been considerable research done since Rashid > > left for Microsoft, particularly with L4 at Dresden University, concerning > > microkernel performance, thereby showing up more clearly some of the > > advantages and disadvantages. > > Not to imply that just because something is written in assembler means > that it's always smaller and faster, but, it's written entirely in > assembler! Of course it'd be small and fast. :) > > (Unless I'm missing something) > > > Note that: > > a) L4 is actually a small microkernel; > > b) OSKit has been showing off that it is useful to create an OS > > infrastructure surrounding memory allocation schemes in order to be > > supportive of specialized languages; > > c) Most early microkernels seem to have been monolithic systems, unlike > > Hurd. > > I think that theoretically, the Hurd would be much better off ditching > GNUMach for L4, but there's a lot stopping something like that.
IMHO we'd be better off with Fiasco (written in C++ (which is kindof a downer), but GPL, and more portable). > We're effectively throwing away a lot of work by ditching GNUMach. It > is always smart to get rid of something that isn't working NOW than it is > to wait awhile until you're positive that it isn't working, but it's > difficult to go on something like that because not everyone agrees that > GNUMach isn't working. Although it seems that way so far. <snip> > Possibly some better publicity for switching, because we's need people! > > But, I have no status here, so I can shut up now. I'm trying to get some time to have a try at porting the odd server. The IPC stuff is the biggest change - some considerable re-writing will be needed here. I've had a couple of offers of help already, which is a start, I guess. Matthew mad as ever :-s
