[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mach or L4 or Coyotos or ... !

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Mach or L4 or Coyotos or ... !
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 03:11:47 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At 8 Apr 2006 16:21:05 -0700,
ahmed.07@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi all. Guys I _was_ really interested about Hurd development and all
> those new things (Microkernel, multi-servers, OO, ..). So I downloaded
> code, willing to study it to be able to contribute. Till now no
> problems !. But really guys Please stick on a consistent path.
> In the doc/navigating file, it says I should have good understanding
> of the Mach microkernel. Then I see some guys say L4 is much better
> and quicker than Mach. So Hurd will be ported to L4. THEN, I hear that
> HURD main maintaners wants to make HURD be built over Coyotos !.
> Guys for God's sake, you are pushing all the developers out instead of
> attracting them. I wanted to contribute. But I don't Like the idea
> that my code and work will be nothin if normally the maintainers just
> chose another microkernel cause of a missing feature in the current
> one.
> Please try to attract developers. If Coyotos is the right path, stick
> with it.
> I hope I can help you guys when you really have a clear direction path.

The official microkernel is Mach, with all its features and warts.

Everything else you heard is research.  Research is not guided by
goals like attracting developers, or even sticking to a consistent
path (except the path of research itself).

Speaking for the people who research other microkernels, let me tell
you that we do not know what the right path is.  Thus, we can not
stick with it.  When we do have any confidence in our results at all,
at the level that we think it can survive critical review, we will let
you know.  Then you can look at it and consider contributing to it or

Until then, for those people who need clarity, they can only decide to
contribute to the existing code base or not at all.  Those people who
are more adventurous and don't mind spending time on mistakes as well
as successes are also invited to help with the research, of course.

I am sure some old chinese guy could say all this in one fortune cookie. :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]