Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!sdcc6!jclark
From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: Bytes in Mach 3.0? (mine is smaller than yours, revisited)
Message-ID: <16894@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 91 23:51:53 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.214231.21348@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1991Feb16.002946.5711@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb18.145707.26230@cbnews.att.com>
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 17

In article <1991Feb18.145707.26230@cbnews.att.com> rock@cbnews.att.com (Y. Rock Lee) writes:
>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,
+
+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 

I presumed that 'micro' meant 1) freee of un*x-ism and hence free of
AT* license 2) included only task management and memory management.
High level file system and other usual 'macro' kernel features where
not included. As for 250k so what! Buy a 2 MegaBit ROM.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com