14 Dec
2022
14 Dec
'22
7:40 a.m.
Has anything material come of later Mach work other than knowledge and influence on other
systems? I don't have a complete picture but it's my understanding that there
were plenty of developments after NeXT and OSF had their way with it that aren't
reflected in, say, macOS. Something about said OSs being forked before Mach 3, which is
listed in some references as being more true to the micro kernel architecture.
As an aside, I wish Apple would actually engage with their "open source" nature
more. I'd love to plink around in the Darwin kernel but even with Google-fu have
never managed to actually get a kernel build all the way through. Their lack of
documentation is a painful matter. I'd love to bootstrap it on RISC-V if I could get
there...
- Matt G.
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, December 13th, 2022 at 5:05 PM, Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:00:46PM -0700, Andrew
Warkentin wrote:
On 12/13/22, Larry McVoy lm(a)mcvoy.com wrote:
Yes, QNX predated Minix by several years, but Minix was completely
independent and there was no QNX influence on it at all AFAIK.
Have you talked to Andy and confirmed that? I'd be quite surprised if
he hadn't played with QNX but who knows. I wouldn't assume he hadn't.
And forgive me for asking, do you have some axe to grind against QNX
or something?
To me, it's not that surprising that the rest of the world didn't copy
QNX because the rest of the world was either a mono-kernel or it was
Mach. Don't get me started on Mach, it has defenders but I absolutely
hate it. Mach is more of a distributed research OS that advertised
itself as a microkernel. There is nothing micro about Mach. It's
a big bloated mess.
--
---
Larry McVoy Retired to fishing http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat I'm
well aware that QNX has been extremely successful commercially and
can be found in a wide range of embedded systems. I'm specifically
talking about architectural influence on other OSes.
Minix? QNX predated that.