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

[tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:57:56PM +1100, Martin wrote:
>[...]
> if a microkernel existed for NetBSD (even as an alternative kernel to Xen &
> generic) it would really benefit both development for NetBSD and knowledge
> of Microkernels and how to improve them. 

Be careful not to confuse the advertisement about "microkernels"---I
mean the lie about the name proper---and the reality.

Plan9 was made by the fathers of Unix at a time when to be published
and acclaimed, one had to work on "microkernel". And the Plan9
paper has some ironical words about that. Because Plan9 is not a
"microkernel(TM)" but happens to be "micro" (minimal), efficient,
and for a totally distributed system. Things that "microkernels"
are unable to be at least for the 3 together. "Micro"kernels are
big; and since the efficiency is desastrous for distributed systems,
to "demonstrate" that they are the correct way they go backward to
assembly i.e. loose portability. Is Minix distributed in the same
sense as Plan9? Or is it Unix (not distributed)?

-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                      http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C