[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: L4 instead of gnumach?
From: |
Roland McGrath |
Subject: |
Re: L4 instead of gnumach? |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:25:21 -0400 (EDT) |
> 1. No one really wants to work on gnumach.
> 2. OSkit-mach is too slow. The COM interface in oskit is (IMO) too
> bloated (this is in regards to many people saying "use oskit-mach").
Do you mean relative to gnumach or just in general?
Noone has reported anything about performance of oskit-mach to me.
Not that I am against using L4 or other kernels, but there is a lot of work
involved in that.
- L4 instead of gnumach?, Ron Farrer, 2000/10/27
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, David Welch, 2000/10/27
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?,
Roland McGrath <=
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/10/27
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Ron Farrer, 2000/10/27
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Erik Verbruggen, 2000/10/30
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Niels Möller, 2000/10/30
- Re: [Hurd-alpha-devel] Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Niklas Höglund, 2000/10/30
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Erik Verbruggen, 2000/10/30
- Re: L4 instead of gnumach?, Niels Möller, 2000/10/30