On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > But it wasn't the only problem. Other issues were the fully synchnonous > IPC, which is unsuitable for certain use cases -- including situation > common in a UNIX environment;
There is unchallenged evidence in the literature that Linux on top of L4 (which, note, uses a fully synchronous IPC model) is *faster* than Linux running native, I wonder if you can cite concrete examples and back them up with something better than assertions. > ...and the completely different resource > management approach. > The Coyotos kernel does not *have* a resource management approach. It provides naming and primitive protection for atomic system resources at the level of pages, but does not define any policy over those resources. Resource management is performed entirely at user level. So yes, this would be a reason not to use Coyotos the system, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Coyotos the kernel. > I'm not sure whether the persistence mechanism was also a concern > already when this decision was made, or it was only later that Marcus > changed his mind on that... > Coyotos doesn't implement persistence, so if that was an issue, I have to conclude that people didn't look very seriously at Coyotos. shap
