On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 19:08:35 -0600 (CST) 
 "The Great Mr. Kurtz [David A. Gatwood]" <davagatw@Mars.utm.edU> wrote:

 > That makes sense, but if the Mach Microkernel is available on a platform,
 > it certainly makes for a quick port after the initial coding (i.e. porting
 > to future platforms that support Mach3 would simply involve a recompile,
 > and I suspect the mach3 platform list will grow very quickly for this
 > reason.)   Also, the ability of Mach to run multiple servers would, in
 > theory, allow one to basically run two OS'es side-by-side, for instance
 > Linux and NetBSD... or eventually... MacOS and NetBSD.

Couple of comments:

	(a) Porting NetBSD to a Mach microkernel would be a lot more
	    work than stealing the appropriate h/w bits from Mach and
	    porting NetBSD to the hardware.

	(b) Mach 3 has been around for a while.  It supports a
	    variety of h/w, but I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable
	    running a server on a u-kernel; I'd rather have the
	    performance of a monolithic kernel in many cases.
	    Also, it's not clear that people will be porting
	    Mach like mad :-)

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                               Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                          Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                                Pager: 415.428.6939