Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:15 UTC, submitted by Gregory Plummer
Thread beginning with comment 442015
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The Apple XNU kernel is not a microkernel.
The fact they use (only parts of) the Mach kernel is misleading, it is an hybrid kernel like NT & others (linux, in a way, with FUSE).
The Mach kernel is not always a microkernel: the inter-process communications had so much overhead that the easy way to improve performance was to fuse the servers back inside the kernel, thus going back to a monolithic (or at least hybrid) design. At one time, the Mach "microkernel" was so not "micro" that Jonathan S. Shapiro coined the name "nanokernel" to designate true microkernels.
Edited 2010-09-22 10:30 UTC
The Apple XNU kernel is not a microkernel.
Yes, I know.
The fact they use (only parts of) the Mach kernel is misleading, it is an hybrid kernel like NT & others (linux, in a way, with FUSE).
Yes, I know.
But they could port more easily parts of it including IOKit CFLite and other parts free parts to Hurd, like a more complete puredarwin by filling missing parts with Hurd.




Member since:
2006-01-22
The article fails to trace the DDEKit work and ViengoOS work. Moreover sticking to Mach seems a dead end unless they aim to create an OS utilizing Apple public available sources (which I think would be a good approach).