Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!cc.tut.fi!cc.tut.fi!n67786 From: n67786@cc.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: listen up NeXT! Message-ID: Date: 3 May 91 17:29:29 GMT References: <1991May2.133857.21752@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1991May2.150710.17939@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <74459@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Sender: n67786@cc.tut.fi (Tero Nieminen) Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland. Lines: 21 In-Reply-To: dwboyce@acsu.buffalo.edu's message of 2 May 91 20:07:13 GMT In article <74459@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dwboyce@acsu.buffalo.edu (Doug Boyce) writes: Let's not forget that NeXTstep evolves around Mach. Any porting to another system that doesn't support objective-C, threads and other Mach'isms (2.? uses this more so that 1.?) will inherently be buggy or impossible to implement. If IBM really wants to hop on the NeXTstep bandwagon they may have to go Mach themselves. Objective-C certainly is not the main issue here--it can be ported on any platform since it's not platform specific. Mach threads (or lightweight processes as they are called elsewhere) can be implemented in other operating systems besides Mach. And in deed have been. For example SunOS has them. And if you have the source licence to your unix, you can implement light weight processes (if not by yourself, by others). NextStep seems to use mach threads intensively so it would probably benefit of a OS where they are implemented. Mach on the other hand is more of a generic kernel suitable for wide variety of operating systems (not just unix). -- Tero Nieminen Tampere University of Technology n67786@cc.tut.fi Tampere, Finland, Europe