Is anyone going to answer Joachim's question?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:15:07PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 03:59:32PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > As much as I appreciate some aspects of the Hurd's design, I must say I > > never really saw the point of having a microkernel if it doesn't allow > > you to implement drivers as services. > > Mach allows you to implement user-space drivers AFAIK. This no > limitation in the Hurd, we can do it. Our current drivers are just a > big hack at the moment. > > > Today's hardware is so much of a moving target, that having drivers in > > separate processes would be a huge boon, especially considering the fact > > how much easier it would be for those untrusted 3rd parties (hardware > > manufacturers ;-) to write and debug drivers if they are just standard > > process using the standard user mode API. > > I agree, on L4 we must implement drivers in user-space, but that will > probably just a hack of the Linux drivers until we get enough people > to write native drivers. This is certainly something we want and will > likely be created in the future. > > > The only popular OS I know that gets this right is QNX, but sadly it's > > proprietary as hell. > > I'm sure we can do better. > > Jeroen Dekkers > -- > Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org > IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- from da Bobstopper (Public Key available at http://bobturf.australispro.com.au/publickey.html) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
