From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 25598 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2022 07:49:45 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 14 Dec 2022 07:49:45 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313744247A; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:49:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CF9F42479 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:49:35 +1000 (AEST) X-Envelope-From: arnold@skeeve.com Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 2BE7nXWq012687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:49:33 -0700 Received: (from arnold@localhost) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 2BE7nWE2012686; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:49:32 -0700 From: arnold@skeeve.com Message-Id: <202212140749.2BE7nWE2012686@freefriends.org> X-Authentication-Warning: frenzy.freefriends.org: arnold set sender to arnold@skeeve.com using -f Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:49:32 -0700 To: tuhs@tuhs.org, andreww591@gmail.com References: <20221211200327.GC8801@mcvoy.com> <8F5B431B-3789-42C7-8E34-0B6A417B41CF@iitbombay.org> <20221212033453.GE8801@mcvoy.com> <20221213133726.GA20511@mcvoy.com> <20221214010531.GK20511@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID-Hash: BQATPNJOIR4W7BKFQWW2IFDFAAQ5Y2QA X-Message-ID-Hash: BQATPNJOIR4W7BKFQWW2IFDFAAQ5Y2QA X-MailFrom: arnold@skeeve.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Clever code (was Re: Re: Stdin Redirect in Cu History/Alternatives? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Andrew Warkentin wrote: > Yes, I agree 100% that Mach is a complete and utter failure as a > microkernel, and seems to have almost single-handedly destroyed the > reputation of microkernels. I don't get why everyone was so focused on > Mach-like kernels when there was a better alternative that had been > around in some form for almost a decade before Mach (QNX wasn't the > first of its kind; it seems to have had pretty significant influence > from Thoth). I suspect because Mach was available if you had the right Unix licenses and because it was hot in the research world in the mid 80s. Researchy types tend to look at what other researchers are doing / using, it seems to me often without knowledge of or caring about what people are using in industry. (My two cents, from having worked at universities.) Arnold