Re: Broken dream of mine :(

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 04:37:26PM +1000, William Leslie wrote:
> 2009/9/30 arnuld uttre <address@hidden>:

> > Now I wonder why Viengoos was created as an alternative if Coyotos
> > was fine.
> 
> It may* have been fine for what it does, but like any good microkernel
> (including L4), Coyotos leaves resource partitioning to userspace
> servers. Most of what Viengoos does seems to me to be implementing
> means for resource management; choice of microkernel under that effort
> may or may not have had an effect on how difficult it was to
> implement.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Both Coyotos an Viengoos do
resource management in userspace components, but need the right kernel
primitives to be able to account resource usage and enforce the
distribution; and as the models differ quite a lot, so do the necessary
primitives AIUI.

> I don't think Neal made a bad choice, going with an established kernel
> (pistachio) as a base makes more sense than getting roped into
> maintaining one yourself (which may have happened had he used
> Coyotos), all things being equal.

L4 was only (mis-)used as a hardware abstraction in the prototype
implementation of Viengoos. There is now also a proper native x86_64
implementation. It isn't based on L4 anymore -- and conceptually, never
really was.

-antrik-