Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:45:19 -0700 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: [OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD |
| |
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 07:41:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:12:49AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > The microkernel part of any reasonable microkernel is tiny. > > And who says Mach is a reasonable microkernel :)
Yup, more like a maxikernel :)
That was my reaction on reading the code years ago and it hasn't changed. I used to know one of the main guys who did the QNX microkernel (Dan Hildebrandt, RIP 1998) and he talked about how a real microkernel was never touched by more than 3 people and each of them spent as much time removing stuff as adding it.
Mach is kinda on the bloated side, I always questioned the wisdom of the GNU HURD being based on Mach, seemed like a bad call. But then, unless you have an extremely well controlled dev team, any micro kernel is a bad call, it's going to bloat out. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |