From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <442B3496.9060308@lanl.gov> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:29:58 -0700 From: Ronald G Minnich User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] [OT] linux origins, why not? References: <3a2c5ee90758f46a3696656c51a44025@quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <3a2c5ee90758f46a3696656c51a44025@quanstro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25e1e1b0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 quanstro@quanstro.net wrote: > mach was developed at cmu and freely available, wasn't it? the documentation > was (tree killers). best Mach phrase: "micro kernel doesn't mean it is small, just that it does not do much". from a flame war that erupted when the leviathan mach 3.0 came out. Well, it may have been big, but at least it was slow. Lots of good research came out of mach ... not what you think. sandia national labs has done lots of great OS work for 10 years, or so, spurred on by the unusable Mach-derived OSF-1/MK-AD that came on their paragon, and the need to toss it and start clean. SNL did some very nice work, all due to the need to get rid of the "micro kernel". ron