RE: NetBSD Next Logical Step: Microkernel...?

> Why hasn't NetBSD decided to change over from a Monolithic Kernel to
> a Microkernel Design?
[snip]
> The question is more directed towards well the tools and design of
> the NetBSD operating system. In my view NetBSD's design and tools and
> what it aims for are nearly a perfect match for the designed
> modularity of a Microkernel. Both provide something that will
> probably benefit the other in more ways than one over the long term.
>
> Take NetBSD's build.sh toolchain that allows for NetBSD to simply be
> built from one CPU architecture to another with very little to no
> code variation. Something that the Microkernel tries to implement by
> only having the core drivers etc necessary in kernel space. Then take
> the RUMP anykernel design which spells microkernel in a nutshell. The
> RUMP anykernel is the biggest asset of all in my opinion, you've
> already got the whole IPC, hypervisor etc created and probably
> wouldn't take alot of work to take it one step further (welcome to be
> corrected if i am wrong).

You bring up several good points. I believe these are the main reasons that Minix has decided to use NetBSD userland, libc, and pkgsrc.

Tim
--

Tim Larson
Software Engineer

e: Tim.Larson%proxibid.com@localhost
p: 877-505-7770
d: 402-505-7770

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify by return email. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, no assurance or warranty is given that this email and any attachments are free of viruses.