From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Dec 17  9: 1:28 2000
From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Dec 17 09:01:25 2000
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADB437B400
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 09:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14089;
	Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:00:56 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA08264;
	Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:00:54 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate)
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14908.61766.86624.306668@nomad.yogotech.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:00:54 -0700 (MST)
To: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>,
	Patryk Zadarnowski <pat@jantar.org>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>,
	SteveB <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kernel type
In-Reply-To: <20001217203917.A42764@gurney.reilly.home>
References: <pat@jantar.org>
	<85112.977020676@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
	<20001217203917.A42764@gurney.reilly.home>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > > PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
> > > that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
> > > choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
> > > misguided.
> > 
> > It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's
> > misguided or not.  You may remember that Apple bought a little company
> > called NeXT a few years back.  Well, that company's people had a lot
> > to do with the OS design of OS X and let's not forget the design of
> > NeXTStep.
> 
> Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious
> microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD?  I've never
> understood the point of that sort of use.  It makes sense for a
> QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba style of architecture, but
> how does Mach help Apple, instead of using the bottom half of
> BSD as well as the top half?

Kernel threads out of the box?


Nate


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message