[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels

From: Niels Möller
Subject: Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels
Date: 21 Jan 2004 16:41:30 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Jonas Hartmann <address@hidden> writes:

> L4Mach would make no sense - L4+Mach maybe (running a mach os on a l4
> microkernel system)

Correct. There's no such thing as L4Mach, as far as I'm aware. It
should be possible to implement Mach on top of L4, and that was
considered briefly when porting Hurd to L4 was first discussed. But I
don't think there's much point in doing Mach on L4, and I don't know
about anybody working on that.

The hurd-l4 effort is trying to port the hurd libraries and servers to
L4, and in that process some infrastructure which was provided by Mach
but not by L4 must be written more or less from scratch.


reply via email to

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