--- "Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well he said performance is not really an issue, but > this > is one thing that linux people have been bashing > hurd with. > Performance has always been a primary design > objective in OS > design.
Well don't you assume that the performance in HURD cannot be increased.Some effort is required than just pure denial. > But wait a minute. My god, you intend to turn emacs > to > really an operating system now. That's scary. ;) I don't think there is any need discussing this further , may be you can stick with a language, others needn't. > You know, both solaris kernel and win2k kernel are > pretty > modular. Practically the way it has grown, the the modularity is of little use I guess as far as MS is concerned. > In fact, the win2k kernel _is_ a > microkernel > design so you could say that it's really similar to > HURD. Theoritically may be it started that way but ultimately can you really compare it to HURD? Their microkernel itself has bloted to a big extent which kills it's purpose. > Anyway, those > people have been there'n' done that, and AFAIK they > aren't trying to > facilitate a multi-language development for their > modular > kernels, why not? Come on let's not bring in Billy here.Ok you can be happy coding in VB thro'out. > In my opinion, you have persuasive arguments that > the > implementation can have good performance. I'm not > well > persuaded by them though, because I try to reckon > the distributed > case which I believe might not be very good with > CORBA. Any better alternatives you have??:-) > On the other hand, reliability and development costs > may be > more serious, especially the development cost. Yes effort is required!!!But didn't quite understand you on reliablity?? Mridul. ===== Inspired by GNU www.gnu.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
