* Jan Atle Ramsli writes: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: >> * Jan Atle Ramsli writes: > Well, now you are at center of the what I think is the problem. Who > says either of Mach or L4 is even suitable for this purpose? There > was a possibility of a total 'Faridization' of the whole thing > (sorry, Farid, (you can imagine how many dinner parties I get > invited to) I don't even know if you remember it, but we did talk > about implementing a kernel with a minimal API) and it was concluded > that nobody would agree to it.
Why would nobody agree to this? If there was an nice library I don't see how anyone could object. >> And Neal is correct that it is a non-trivial thing, I believe that >> Roland or Thomas are working on this right now. If this had been a >> trivial fix it would have been fixed a long time ago. > To me the word 'trivial' covers more than a 'fix', it includes > implementing a driver, but _only_ if the device is well documented. > One of my very first programming tasks was building a driver for a > graphics device, in 1986! Well, for me "trivial" means a one-line fix, and not a pretty big job like ext2fs. But each to their own.. >> PS, I hope that I didn't sound to flame-ish. =) > That is really not so important. Not now. What is imprtant now, is > what is being said, not so much how it is said. Had I not let my > evil tounge get the better of me, I would not have been incited to > .. well, u&r. Right now, the Hurd is finally starting to move away > from the water-hole, I don't hear the thunder of 1.84467e+19 hoofs > yet, but I hear whips cracking. No, what is important right now is what we code, talk is cheap. :) -- Alfred M. Szmidt _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
