diff options
author | Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name> | 2011-03-26 00:27:11 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name> | 2011-03-26 00:27:11 +0100 |
commit | 10288350709d006710bcdfb747ba9d1a1208d69b (patch) | |
tree | 8f1adaa3a84f543cc9c90e83eeba65bdef74dce0 /history/port_to_another_microkernel | |
parent | d463634b179b77b2802bf78110c3ce0a0d6ed64c (diff) |
history/port_to_another_microkernel: New. Based on other pages.
Diffstat (limited to 'history/port_to_another_microkernel')
-rw-r--r-- | history/port_to_another_microkernel/discussion.mdwn | 69 |
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/history/port_to_another_microkernel/discussion.mdwn b/history/port_to_another_microkernel/discussion.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f2161195 --- /dev/null +++ b/history/port_to_another_microkernel/discussion.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +[[!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 +document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or +any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant +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]]."]]"""]] + +IRC, #hurd, 2011-01-12. + +[[!taglink open_issue_documentation]] + + <Pete-J> 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 + <Pete-J> as i understand is that Mach is a first generation microkernel + that's very old in design and causes alot of issues + <Pete-J> that's where l4 and viengoos comes in - they are trying to be the + next generation Mach - am i correct? + <neal> l4 is not a drop in replacement for Mach + <neal> it doesn't actually do much resource management + <neal> for instance, you still have to implement a memory manager + <neal> this is where several issues are with Mach + <neal> l4 doesn't address those issues; it punts to the operating system + <Pete-J> and what about viengoos? + <neal> it's unfinished + <neal> and it implemented some untested ideas + <neal> i.e., parts of viengoos were research + <neal> there has not been a sufficient evaluation of those ideas to + determine whether they are a good approach + <Pete-J> meaning that viengoos is a research kernel that could aid Mach? + <neal> I'm not sure I understand your question + <Pete-J> 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? + <Pete-J> i am sorry for my limited english + <neal> viengoos was designed with a Hurd-like user-land in mind + <neal> in that sense it was a Mach replacement + <neal> (unlike L4) + <neal> viengoos consisted of a few experiments + <neal> one could implement them in mach + <neal> but it would require exposing new interfaces + <neal> in which case, I'm not sure you could call the result Mach + <Pete-J> 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? + <antrik> no + <antrik> having something working all the time is crucial + <antrik> it's very hard to motivate people to work on a project that might + be useful, in a couple of years, perhaps... + <Pete-J> 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 + <Pete-J> *if Mach is meant to be replaced + <antrik> 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 + <Pete-J> as i understand man power is something you need - and by spreading + out the developers just makes the progress more slow + <antrik> but even if it *were* to be replaced one day, it doesn't change + the fact that we need it *now* + <antrik> all software will be obsolete one day. doesn't mean it's not worth + working on + <antrik> the vast majority of work is not on the microkernel anyways, but + on the system running on top of it + <Pete-J> ahh i see + <antrik> manpower is not something that comes from nowhere. again, having + something working is crucial in a volunteer project like this + <antrik> there are no fixed plans |