Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 09:58:54 +0100 (MET) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: combssf@salem.ge.com (Stephen F. Combs) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers) Subject: Re: Pageable kernel? [was: PnP Proposal] Message-ID: <199601210858.JAA12837@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960111094629.1138H-100000@combs.salem.ge.com> from "Stephen F. Combs" at Jan 11, 96 09:50:17 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen F. Combs writes: > > On the idea of a microkernel, I've got a grand total of 3 Solaris2.x > systems out of 70 total Sun's [and one of those was forced on me by > corporate!]. The reason I initially went with 386BSD0.1 was because of > it's close similarity to my SunO/S box at work! MicroKernels COULD be > nice but my experience with them has been SH**. I've been working with > SYSVr4 for years [fighting all the way] and am constantly pinging on my > Sun Rep to keep SunO/S 4.x alive! Don't confuse the implementation with the intention. Tandem's Guardian OS, now called NonStop Kernel, is a microkernel implementation, and it works very well (probably the most reliable commercially available operating system). The difference is that it was designed as such, whereas they're trying to make one out of Slowaris 2. I don't want to go into detail about the advantages of microkernels, but I'd like to see one happen--*after* I've seen a lot of more important things happen. In any case, LKMs are a step in that direction. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601210858.JAA12837>