Yeah, GNU Hurd is coming. Next Year. Sure it does!
*running gag*
(Hope this does not hurt anybody
Well, seriously I’m very interested what it will be, but it takes a little bit toooo much time releasing the first version, and not even mentioning betas aso. )
Covering mostly Mach 2.5, which is used, um, nowhere anymore. OSX tracks Mach 3.0 and 4.4 BSD (or later, with 10.2 and on…tracking FreeBSD 5.x userland).
If memory serves, GNUMach and Utah’s Mach adhere to the Mach 4.0 standard.
I don’t know of anyone who is really actively doing anything developing Mach right now. Apple is focused on XNU, which is really different than the Mach concept, but Mach elements are retained because the system depends upon them (just as the Mach VM remains in some monolithic BSDs).
GNU/Hurd seems to be mostly focused on the L4 port right now, although the Mach version does <a href=”http://hurd.757.org/“>work. (Plsdonthaxxmekthx)
How can I comment on this article? It doesn’t even have the obligatory screenshots running a stock looking gnome and a faux transparent terminal window open!
Seriously though, it’s a pretty good read to get an overall view of mach, whether it’s the latest and greatest or not.
Don’t you mean screenshots of a bazillion terminal windows open along with IRC, XMMS, and The GIMP, because the user is pretending to be doing something important?
I find it interesting that no mention of Richard Rashid was made in this document, despite his historical importance with regard to Mach.
Perhaps it’s because of his current affiliation with Microsoft (he is VP of MS R&D). Very strange though.
Yeah, GNU Hurd is coming. Next Year. Sure it does!
*running gag*
(Hope this does not hurt anybody
Well, seriously I’m very interested what it will be, but it takes a little bit toooo much time releasing the first version, and not even mentioning betas aso. )
Richard Rashid is mentioned twice in the Bibliographic Notes, and twice in the credits.
What the hell? Do you have any idea who Abe Silberschatz is?
Hint: not your regular /. OS “Historian”.
The way you said it makes it seem like he’s just another hobbyst trying to review/analyse something he’s not actually qualified to.
Covering mostly Mach 2.5, which is used, um, nowhere anymore. OSX tracks Mach 3.0 and 4.4 BSD (or later, with 10.2 and on…tracking FreeBSD 5.x userland).
If memory serves, GNUMach and Utah’s Mach adhere to the Mach 4.0 standard.
I don’t know of anyone who is really actively doing anything developing Mach right now. Apple is focused on XNU, which is really different than the Mach concept, but Mach elements are retained because the system depends upon them (just as the Mach VM remains in some monolithic BSDs).
GNU/Hurd seems to be mostly focused on the L4 port right now, although the Mach version does <a href=”http://hurd.757.org/“>work. (Plsdonthaxxmekthx)
Who has a webserver running on port 8100, there are users behind big ugly firewalls that block unknown ports (including me).
Is there a mirror somewhere? I want to read this article.
http://joshua.haninge.kth.se/~gk/appb.pdf
It is a chapter from “Operating System Concepts”. Here is another link : http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/avi/os-book/os7/
gk, wakamaru – thanks!
How can I comment on this article? It doesn’t even have the obligatory screenshots running a stock looking gnome and a faux transparent terminal window open!
Seriously though, it’s a pretty good read to get an overall view of mach, whether it’s the latest and greatest or not.
Don’t you mean screenshots of a bazillion terminal windows open along with IRC, XMMS, and The GIMP, because the user is pretending to be doing something important?