Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!jim
From: jim@strath-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: UUCP Port Turnaround (==> Unix Kernel hacks)
Message-ID: <395@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18-Feb-87 07:59:44 EST
Article-I.D.: stracs.395
Posted: Wed Feb 18 07:59:44 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 07:43:18 EST
References: <171@ndmath.UUCP> <4090@nsc.nsc.com> <166@piaget.UUCP>
Reply-To: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath comp.sources.wanted:570 comp.unix.wizards:1033 comp.unix.questions:1102

In article <3233@rsch.WISC.EDU> mcvoy@rsch.WISC.EDU (Lawrence W. McVoy) writes:
>.. the people at CMU have something called MACH ....  It's a message
>passing kernel based on Accent that is binarily compatible with 4.3BSD on 
>Vax, source compatible elsewhere.  It's supposedly well designed,
>easy to maintain, and has some new features that make Unix look sick (like
>copy-on-write MM, used to get pass-by-value saftey with pass-by-reference
>speed, msg based so networking is cake, user loadable drivers, pagers, etc).

Granted MACH has lots of interesting things in it, but it is HUGE. Even
a BSD kernel pales into insignificance. I recall someone from CMU saying
that their development kernel had a 700K text segment! OK - it may have
had lots of redundant code for development work, but I can't see how MACH
could be smaller than a comparable Berkeley kernel with all these nice new
ideas that CMU are implementing. 

The MACH kernel source might be prettier, but can we afford the extra core
needed to run it? :-)

		Jim