unix_fan

Is mach dead?

thomas schwinge

Hello!

unix_fan <tmellman@web.de> writes:


Well. Mostly. Mach was a huge research project over many years and
places. A lot was experimented with it and a lot learned from that.
(Also we now know how not to do certain things...)

The latest publically visible occurences of Mach were within MkLinux
(Linux on top of Mach), Mac OS X (somehow uses Mach) and the GNU/Hurd
system, which also is still using Mach as its underlying microkernel.


Regards,
Thomas

martin etteldorf

No. And now try trolling in another group.


Martin

--
"For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
Be caught in a commonplace way.
Do all that you know, and try all that you don't;
Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"

thomas schwinge

Hello!

Martin Etteldorf <etteldor@email.lu> writes:

Where is Mach really alive? (Seriously.)


Regards,
Thomas

martin etteldorf

In MachTen, Mac OS X and Tru64.


Martin

--
"For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
Be caught in a commonplace way.
Do all that you know, and try all that you don't;
Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"

unix_fan

Oh, okay. Mach is not dead, but you want to make damn sure that your
newsgroup remains so, right?

unix_fan

Oh, that's intriquing! Can you give any examples?


Well, Mac OS X is apparently viable. Somebody mentioned Tru64 Unix. I've
used that and didn't know it was mach-based ... it almost seems incredible
to me - it's a fundamentally different approach. If it were better, more
platforms would use it. If it were inferior, a company like Digital would
have been able to jetison it quickly.

Can it be that mach is in Tru64 and Mac OS X in name only?

Is the idea of a message-passing kernel - with user-space conventional
kernel functionality - dead?