On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:38:02AM +0200, ness wrote: > I don't want to argue with you, now. I read the ml and know there have > already been long discussions. For me it looked like both the pros and > the cons always found an answer, I don't want to begin that again, as I > think it will be more or less the same conversation. I could say that it > was planned to wrap the driver tasks into hurd tasks, I could say in my > idea it would be possible to run multiple OS at the same time, as all > resource management is done through servers that are only once in a the > system. > > I absolutely agree with you that drivers are no aliens and must to be > handled in a ordinary way, actually 1-3 of my argumentation don't really > affect my mind, the fourth was what decided me to rethink. > > Actually, I think so. who a) has been part of the first argumentation > about the posix level drivers and b) is allowed to should come to a > decision (I guess the only thing that has to be decided is wether 4 is > worth it.). > -- > -ness- > >
Since we have now some great research and development related to virtualization (para-virtualization with xen, pre-virtualization with afterburn and virtualization support with AMD's Pacifica and Intel's Vanderpool), running multiple OS's in the same machine is going to get very common. So, I don't think this should be a Hurd task. Implementing a free software monitor compatible with Pacifica or Vanderpool should be a more worth task, IMHO. Hope this helps you decide. Regards, Thadeu Cascardo. --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
