No, they do not. The fundamental issues with Mach are *not* the reason
why we are stuck with drivers from Linux 2.0. They are *not* the reason
why all disk I/O is like ten times slower due to lack of optimization.
(They are responsible for bad performance in *some* areas, but not the
bulk of it.) They are *not* the reason why we have no sound support, no
USB support, no SATA support etc. And they are *not* the reason why
nobody bothered to write software that allows making use of Hurd's
interesting features. They are not the reason for any of the major
problems of the current Hurd implementation.
All of these things can and should be fixed within the current
implementation. None of these things will get magically fixed by an
improved design that might come up some day. This is not a matter of
perfect design; this is a matter of actually doing the grunt work.
I agree that these are things that could be improved in the current
version. And most of that work, in some cases all of it, would carry
over into Hurd-NG with little rewriting. It would be very useful for
people to work on these improvements, especially with some
consultation with Marcus to make sure that they do the work in ways
that will carry over easily.
