[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Persistance (was: Re: The idea of an own L4)
From: |
Jonathan S. Shapiro |
Subject: |
Re: Persistance (was: Re: The idea of an own L4) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:56:14 -0400 |
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 05:29 +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Also, kernel object management is pretty important to me, if we want
> > at least orthogonal persistence.
>
> "At least"?...
>
> Unless I'm missing something very crucial, unless I've completely
> misunderstood the way EROS works, I can confidently claim that
> orthogonal persistance is something we definitely do *not* want. It
> wouldn't help the goals of the Hurd at all. Actually, I'm pretty sure it
> would hinder them.
Umm. Well, anybody can claim anything they want...
Your article raises some good questions, but you make some rather broad
leaps to get to your conclusions, and I think that some of them are
mistaken.
However, it is 5am locally, so I will respond later.
shap
- Re: The idea of an own L4, (continued)
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/10
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, ams, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/11
- Re: The idea of an own L4, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/10/11
Re: The idea of an own L4, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/09
Re: The idea of an own L4, Leonardo Lopes Pereira, 2005/10/10
Re: The idea of an own L4, ness, 2005/10/09