[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels
|
From: |
Jeroen Dekkers |
|
Subject: |
Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels |
|
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:08:28 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:47:36PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Mach is completely separate (micro)kernel from L4, and last I've
> heard, there's no such thing as "L4Mach". Also, it should be "GNU
> Mach" and "OSKit Mach" (I only guess for this one, there may be some
> different punctuation in "OSKit").
>
> Nitpick, OSKit Mach is GNU Mach 2.x (or some such version number) or
> CVS HEAD, GNU Mach is GNU Mach 1.x.
Nitpick, OSKit-Mach is GNU Mach 1.91 and before the 1.3 release it was
1.2.91-OSKit.
Jeroen Dekkers
- If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Anand Raj, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Niels Möller, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Olivier Galibert, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Niels Möller, 2004/01/21
- Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels, Marcus Brinkmann, 2004/01/27