Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!rock
From: rock@cbnews.att.com (Y. Rock Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Bytes in Mach 3.0? (mine is smaller than yours, revisited)
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.145707.26230@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Feb 91 14:57:07 GMT
References: <62753@bbn.BBN.COM> <1991Feb15.214231.21348@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1991Feb16.002946.5711@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 14

In article <1991Feb16.002946.5711@zoo.toronto.edu> geoff@zoo.toronto.edu (Geoffrey Collyer) writes:
>Please note that the Mach ``micro-kernel'', at least as recently
>distributed, is claimed to exclude networking and file system code,
>among other things, if memory serves.  So one is left to wonder why a
>micro-kernel which one would expect to be stripped-down and tight, is
>somewhat larger and much less functional than a macro kernel.

245K of text is not "micro-kernel" at all in my opinion, especially when 
all the networking and file system code are excluded. Also, it's a little
bit misleading to simply use the output from "size" to prove that UNIX 
is a monster, because it includes all the drivers you have in your system.
One needs to do a little more in order to get some fair numbers.

Y. Rock Lee