Could someone explain what the differences between, Mach, Mach, GNU Mach and Darwin are? Why did you choose GNU Mach?
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 06:04:10 +0900, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote: >> However, in general, Mach has >> already been used in commercial systems. NextStep was fairly successful as >> a Unix desktop. Apple's OS/X and OSF/1 are also Mach-based. Rashid, >> Barrera, and other CMU members of the Mach project, who were lured away to >> Microsoft R & D, did many research projects with Mach. They ported Mach to >> the Intel Paragon, supporting two thousand parallel processors and developed >> an enhanced virtual memory subsystem (Odin) for accommodating such massively >> parallel architectures. > > You are ignoring the fact that successful projects are based on Mach >2.5 but not Mach 3.0. AFAIK, there is no commercially successful >project which uses multiple servers on a microkernel, except for QNX.
