Re: Am I missing something?

[Eric Fluger]

OK, you said the "L" word.

Why not use L4?  Seems like just the thing for new-paradigm OS. 
The OSkit folks seem to have a nice tool for generating L4 
driver source from Linux driver source.

I've been looking around the fsf lists and Usenet for references 
to HURD on L4, and there are plenty but many seem old or 
speculative.  The HURD on L4 web site says the project is over.

The HURD web site reflects a peculiar ambivalence towards mach. 
The opening page declares that the system is built on mach which 
implies that mach is integral to the project.  The GNU/Mach page 
seems almost apologetic about mach not being the latest or the 
fastest microkernel around, but makes a case for its maturity. 
It then lists one of machs benefits as requiring a component 
that is currently unimplemented in gnu/mac. The todo list has 
several mach related items on it.  It sort of sounds like you're 
using mach because its ready to go, but it isn't. I'm confused.

These choices may in fact be very wise, but if so I don't think 
you're presenting them all that wonderfully well on the site.

So is there any hurd/l4 work going on?

Also: Is the gnu/mach kernel with a typical complement of 
drivers (I know that's vague, but I can't think of a way around 
that) installed small enough to fit into the L1 cache of a 
garden variety cpu module? (If so, it could be 
performance-competitive with L4 and you should say so on the 
site.)

Eric Fluger
201-860-9608 Desk
201-892-7669 Mobile

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> GNU Mach 1.3.x contains a bunch of glue code so that some drivers from
> Linux will work as they are.  Mach is quite old and thus runs drivers
> in kernel space, where as newer kernel like L4 would run them in
> user-space.
>
> Cheers.