[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Help compiling oskit-mach

From: B. Douglas Hilton
Subject: Re: Help compiling oskit-mach
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:14:08 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3

Farid Hajji wrote:

[Discussion moved to address@hidden
Ok. I'm now subscribed. My apologies for the delay in this response,
I've been learning the proper care and feeding of Volvo automobiles
as my summer wanes and the snow clouds build somewhere over the
horizon :-)

I've followed the L4/Hurd effort for several years now, casually checking in
on their websites every so often. Not much so far. It really sucks that I

which websites are your referring to?

Oh just the GNU site, http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/l4-hurd.html
I think there is a Savannah site similar to sourceforge too, but lost track
of it (or could be confused with gnumach/hurd)

What about the "Fiasco" L4 variant. I would have thought that it would
be rather ideal for Hurd in that it is written in a much more portable manner
than L4 itself. Hurd aims to be the ultimate cross platform environment, so
getting extra ports for free right at the start is a really good thing.

Hurd/L4 will use L4ka::Pistachio,

Fiasco implements an older L4 API/ABI, which we don't plan to use
in Hurd/L4. Only Pistachio currently implements V4 API.

Yes, after revisiting the L4 site, I see that Pistachio is also written in a more portable fashion effecting most of the benefits that Fiasco claimed, but none of its disadvantages.

CPU speed is not the issue here. The Hurd is currently being
redesigned to better fit L4 (and future uKernels) semantics.
L4 is actively developed and supported by the research community,
unlike Mach

Right. Having personally messed around with gnuMach, OSKit-Mach, etc, I would not hesitate to say that Mach has grown into a big scary monster. Its inner workings are tough to grasp, and it is written in an archaic style which is difficult if not impossible to work with. I'm not claiming that L4 is necessarily any better (even though it probably is) just saying that Mach is a real mess when it comes to making it work on modern hardware. The best thing that could be done for Mach is rip out 90% of the code, rewrite that remaining 10% from scratch, and start over. This would be about where L4 was several years ago, so there is a definate advantage to going
with the current up-and-coming ukernel just for your stated reasons.

Since I cannot effectively boot Mach anymore on my newish A7N8X/XP2400+ box, I figure I'll try and pitch in with you L4-Hurd folks. I'm kind of swamped at the moment with a whole lot of family-type stuff to attend (yeah, I'm almost an old fart now), but once the snow flys around
here I typically hunker down and work on some GNUish development projects.

Will be monitoring the list for a while, and I'll kick in with some debugging logs and other
miscellanea as time permits.

- Doug

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]