Re: New thoughts about deva/fabrica

[cascardo]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:38:02AM +0200, ness wrote:
> I don't want to argue with you, now. I read the ml and know there have 
> already been long discussions. For me it looked like both the pros and 
> the cons always found an answer, I don't want to begin that again, as I 
> think it will be more or less the same conversation. I could say that it 
> was planned to wrap the driver tasks into hurd tasks, I could say in my 
> idea it would be possible to run multiple OS at the same time, as all 
> resource management is done through servers that are only once in a the 
> system.
> 
> I absolutely agree with you that drivers are no aliens and must to be 
> handled in a ordinary way, actually 1-3 of my argumentation don't really 
> affect my mind, the fourth was what decided me to rethink.
> 
> Actually, I think so. who a) has been part of the first argumentation 
> about the posix level drivers and b) is allowed to should come to a 
> decision (I guess the only thing that has to be decided is wether 4 is 
> worth it.).
> -- 
> -ness-
> 
> 

Since we have now some great research and development related to
virtualization (para-virtualization with xen, pre-virtualization with
afterburn and virtualization support with AMD's Pacifica and Intel's
Vanderpool), running multiple OS's in the same machine is going to get
very common. So, I don't think this should be a Hurd
task. Implementing a free software monitor compatible with Pacifica or
Vanderpool should be a more worth task, IMHO.

Hope this helps you decide.

Regards,
Thadeu Cascardo.
--

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature