[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Which microkernel is used if not pistachio?

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Which microkernel is used if not pistachio?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:29:02 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:20:59 +0200,
Christian Hütter <address@hidden> wrote:
> [1  <multipart/signed (7bit)>]
> [1.1  <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> Hi list,
> when I wrote about a problem I encountered with pistachio about two
> weeks ago, I was told that L4Ka::Pistachio is not (mainly) used among
> the developers due to security issues. Since I wanted to play around
> with Hurd on L4 a little and (if happy) try to contribute to the project
> myself (if I can...), I would really like to use the right kernel.

Right now, the main developers are doing something else entirely in
real life, so currently the project is mostly stalled.

We are looking at recent developments in the EROS/Coyotos project
(www.coyotos.org), as well as recent developments in all of the L4
groups (Karlsruhe, Dresden, Sydney) with keen interest.

I should say however, that there are many questions that are more
important than the choice of a particular microkernel implementation.
The order of progress should be: Get certainty about the Hurd design,
then figure out what the requirements are to implement such a design,
then look for a microkernel that fits best.

I think it is fair to say at this point that this project has, in its
history, been heavily influences by both of the above microkernel
projects, and that our current design puts us somewhere in the middle
between these projects, mostly on common ground, actually.


reply via email to

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