From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:12:01 -0700 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Acme mailreader In-Reply-To: <8c28239dd33c04e668032c40d598e778@collyer.net> Message-ID: References: <8c28239dd33c04e668032c40d598e778@collyer.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1853eb40-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 geoff@collyer.net wrote: > Remember that Mach was, as far as I know, the largest ``micro-kernel'' > ever produced, larger than most or all of its contemporary > ``macro-kernels'', so that some of us called it a ``Machro-kernel''. I remember a running argument on this when Mach 3.0 was released. - "It's huge" - "No, it's bigger than huge" - "No, it's even bigger than that" The flaming of the code base size continued. Then, my memory tells me, Rashid weighed in with the following comment (from memory) - "Micro kernel doesn't mean it is small, it means it does not do much" What else do you need to say? > I haven't looked very hard (one could check out the mount_* sources > from the Darwin CVS servers), but mount(2) doesn't seem to have much > that's new, except for union mounts, which surprised me. BSD union mounts are very different animals from Plan 9 union mounts, to say the least ... ron