[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is gnumach/Mach 4 the microkernel Hurd will stay with, or is there an
> official direction for something different? (like OSkit-mach,
> OSkit-SomethingElse, mach 3, etc.). In other words, which microkernels
> should we be studying? Which microkernels would make hurd
> implementation easier? I see bits and pieces here and there pointing
> different places.
Here I have a question, too: Since it is a 'micro'-kernel, is there any
reason why we have to use an existing one?
In the (relatively sparse) stuff I have read, it is said that the
microkernel is the one place where you don't care about portability,
because it is small, and relatively easy to reimplement.
It sort of says: Microkernel: 386-assembler
Servers: C++
???
>
> Is there a paper/page somewhere which describes the short comings of the
> Mach 4 and/or Mach 3 code which make it difficult/impossible to achieve
> Hurd goals?
What are the chances that the HURD-microkernel will be ported to another
processor?
Shouldn't this be optimized totally for the processor in question?
Couldnt' we expect one for 486, 586, 686, Athlon, etc.?
>
Sorry to compound on someone else's questions, but there really are a
LOT of questions for people who have not hacked HURD before, and who
would like to be writing code as soon as possible.
>From our point of view, it would be just as easy to write a new kernel
as to learn this one :-)
Thanks, Atle
