From 3459cc0684ed0db666ce7d4489695219ac4f8425 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:42:13 +0100 Subject: hurd/faq/which_microkernel: IRC, #hurd, 2011-01-12. --- hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'hurd') diff --git a/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn b/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn index 10fd31b1..c5026afa 100644 --- a/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn +++ b/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2009, 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] -[[!meta title="What happened to the L4/Coyotos/viengoos micro-kernels?"]] +[[!meta title="What happened to the L4 / Coyotos / Viengoos microkernels?"]] L4 was promising but happened to not be suitable for implementing a general-purpose operating system on top of it. See [[history/port_to_l4]] for the historical details. @@ -17,3 +17,65 @@ Coyotos is abandoned upstream Neal Walfield started working on a newly designed kernel called [[viengoos|microkernel/viengoos]]. Unfortunately, he currently lacks time and the projects it paused. In the meanwhile, people are thus continuing with [[microkernel/mach]]. + +--- + +IRC, #hurd, 2011-01-12. + +[[!taglink open_issue_documentation]] + + Hello i am just curious of the development of Hurd - what's the + current mission on the microkernel i see projects like l4 and viengoos, + will one of these projects replace Mach? or will you stick with Mach + as i understand is that Mach is a first generation microkernel + that's very old in design and causes alot of issues + that's where l4 and viengoos comes in - they are trying to be the + next generation Mach - am i correct? + l4 is not a drop in replacement for Mach + it doesn't actually do much resource management + for instance, you still have to implement a memory manager + this is where several issues are with Mach + l4 doesn't address those issues; it punts to the operating system + and what about viengoos? + it's unfinished + and it implemented some untested ideas + i.e., parts of viengoos were research + there has not been a sufficient evaluation of those ideas to + determine whether they are a good approach + meaning that viengoos is a research kernel that could aid Mach? + I'm not sure I understand your question + Well is viengoos trying to be a replacement for Mach, or will + viengoos be an experiment of new ideas that could be implemented in Mach? + i am sorry for my limited english + viengoos was designed with a Hurd-like user-land in mind + in that sense it was a Mach replacement + (unlike L4) + viengoos consisted of a few experiments + one could implement them in mach + but it would require exposing new interfaces + in which case, I'm not sure you could call the result Mach + Well as i understand you develop two microkernels side by side, + wouldnt it be more effective to investigate viengoos more and maybe move + the focus to viengoos? + no + having something working all the time is crucial + it's very hard to motivate people to work on a project that might + be useful, in a couple of years, perhaps... + Well Mach is meant to be replaced one day - i see no reason to + keep on developing it just because it works at this moment + *if Mach is meant to be replaced + it's not at all clear that it will be replaced by something + completely different. I for my part believe that modifying the existing + Mach is a more promising approach + as i understand man power is something you need - and by spreading + out the developers just makes the progress more slow + but even if it *were* to be replaced one day, it doesn't change + the fact that we need it *now* + all software will be obsolete one day. doesn't mean it's not worth + working on + the vast majority of work is not on the microkernel anyways, but + on the system running on top of it + ahh i see + manpower is not something that comes from nowhere. again, having + something working is crucial in a volunteer project like this + there are no fixed plans -- cgit v1.2.3