On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:06:50PM -0700, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 02:43:25PM -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> 
>  > No, I'll just stick with Apple's statements.  As I said in another
>  > message, I should have said it's sitting WITH Mach. MacOS X is not
>  > a microkernel.  It combines BSD, Mach, and IOKit in a single layer.
> 
> I never said it was a microkernel.  I said it was Mach.  Mach 2.5
> certainly wasn't very microkernel-like.

Mach, according to it's creators, is a microkernel.  Maybe it's not
"micro" sized any more, but it's still a microkernel until another name
is given to it.  In any case, I was just pointing out that MacOS X
is not Mach.

Apple is not using Mach 3.0 in the traditional microkernel way.  Mach is
not layered, it's integrated together with the other pieces of the system.
That's what I meant by saying MacOS X isn't a microkernel.  They aren't
using all of the Mach 3.0 services (which was never an OS like Mach 2.5).




-- 
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza__________________________________shannon@widomaker.com