Hi Folks,
URLs for new developers is now changed to
the hurd development and information links. I am attaching a copy named
the _hurd_links.html that you can store in your file for quick access if you
wish.
Have fun
Jim
Title: The Hurd Development and Information Links
GNU GPL Copy
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Roland McGrath wrote:
> There has been almost no hacking done on gnumach since I did oskit-mach.
> Your porting efforts are the first time lately anyone has been serious
> about microkernel hacking.
That's good news (I think :-P). I checked the 2000-05-05 snapshot of
OSKit
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:59:58AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >3. Integrating the latest version of the Linux device drivers
> > to the Hurd should be further investigated,
> > probably by moving them into user-land.]
>
> I think this is orthogonal to
Hi Farid,
without wanting to harm the essential message of your mail, I have two
comments.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:49:37AM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
>2. There are other Mach implementations besides gnumach with a
> richer or different set of features. Besides using t
Abstract: [1. Keep the Hurd interface(s) to Mach as portable as possible,
so that most/each Mach implementation can be used.
2. There are other Mach implementations besides gnumach with a
richer or different set of features. Besides using the Hurd
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > That's a good reason not to look at it right away :-P Has anyone here
> > actually tried a boot with OSKit besides Jeff?
>
> In previous discussions, I have been the only one having this trouble.
Now you're now allone anymore. I have got trouble too
> Perhaps. I'm looking at both, but working more on gnumach really. If
> everyone keeps nudging us to work on oskit so much, why does anyone bother
> working on gnumach? Just curious...
There has been almost no hacking done on gnumach since I did oskit-mach.
Your porting efforts are the first
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
> You just misunderstand something: Not everyone tells you to work on
> OSKit. Actually, I myself don't recommend using OSKit.
Ah, finally, someone who wants us to deal with gnumach! :-) It's just
that I'd heard from more than four people that we s
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 01:53:55PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Because try as I might, I still have never done a succesful boot of
> > OsKit-Mach.
>
> That's a good reason not to look at it right away :-P Has anyone here
> actually tried a boot with OSKit besides Jeff?
In prev
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Because try as I might, I still have never done a succesful boot of
> OsKit-Mach.
That's a good reason not to look at it right away :-P Has anyone here
actually tried a boot with OSKit besides Jeff?
C
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:04:39AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Perhaps. I'm looking at both, but working more on gnumach really. If
> everyone keeps nudging us to work on oskit so much, why does anyone bother
> working on gnumach? Just curious...
Because try as I might, I still ha
From: "Christopher C. Chimelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux drivers in gnumach
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:04:39 -0400 (EDT)
> Perhaps. I'm looking at both, but working more on gnumach really. If
> everyone keeps nudging us to work on oskit so much, why does anyone bother
> working on
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I hope you'll be asked a third time, because then it becomes the truth :)
Hehehe...
> Ugh, even oskit-mach contains i386 specific code, but less then gnumach
> without oskit. So, it might actually be easier to port oskit-mach, and you
> might be a
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:22:38AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Can you port oskit-mach to alpha? This would probably more straightforward
> > and more helpful in the long run, too.
>
> Ugh...second time we've been asked this.
I hope you'll be asked a third time, because then i
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Okuji gave all the right answers for that. With little variations, the same
> reasons apply to me and probably everyone else around here.
Hmmm...well, the reason we ask is because there are a few devices
that weren't supported under 2.0.x kernels o
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:30:59AM -0700, Ron Farrer wrote:
> What's the deal with the Linux drivers in gnumach. They are from
> 2.0.36... is there a reason why they are not updated to something a bit
> less dusty?
Okuji gave all the right answers for that. With little variations, the same
reaso
> "OY" == OKUJI Yoshinori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OY> * I don't want to see the source code of GNU Mach any longer,
OY> if possible.
Well, it can't be much worse than the Linux source, can it? :-)
17 matches
Mail list logo
