GNU Mach and L4 differences

Hi all,

is it possible to find somewhere informations about differences between 
GNU Mach and L4 microkernel? I found only a few notes written by OKUJI 
Yoshinori in 2000

(http://web.archive.org/web/20010821061536/http://duff.kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~okuji/l4-hurd.html), 
but these informations are probably outdated :(

Cheers

Zbynek

____________________________________________________

Zbynek Michl

Phone CZ: +420 777 195 241
Phone UK: +44 7914 046 357
E-mail: Zbynek.Michl(AT)seznam.cz
WWW1: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xmichl07
WWW2: http://intranet.velkytynec.cz/~maik
ICQ#: 325155298
____________________________________________________

A simple question

Hi,

Can l4-hurd do some basic work now? I mean file and network access,
block drivers ...

If so, where can I find a guide on how to build such a system?

If not, is there any schedule for that?

Thanks in advance.

Wei

Re: A simple question

Hi Wei,

maybe you can try Gnuppix - live GNU/Hurd distribution based on the L4 
microkernel. Its website should be at "http://gnuppix.org", but currently 
this website no longer exists. So you can try find some mirror...

Zbynek

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Wei Shen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can l4-hurd do some basic work now? I mean file and network access,
> block drivers ...
>
> If so, where can I find a guide on how to build such a system?
>
> If not, is there any schedule for that?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Wei
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> L4-hurd mailing list
> L4-hurd <at> gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
>

Re: A simple question

Wei Shen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Can l4-hurd do some basic work now? I mean file and network access,
> block drivers ...
> 

no, no, no :(

> If so, where can I find a guide on how to build such a system?
> 
> If not, is there any schedule for that?
> 

no

hurd/pistachio is considered dead. We're currently looking at another
(not-yet-existing) microkernel called coyotos.
--
-ness-

Re: A simple question

_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd

RE: A simple question

_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd

Re: A simple question

Matheus Morais wrote:
> 
> On 4/11/06, *Tom Bachmann* <e_mc_h2 <at> web.de <mailto:e_mc_h2 <at> web.de>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     hurd/pistachio is considered dead. We're currently looking at another
>     (not-yet-existing) microkernel called coyotos.
>     - --
>     - -ness-
> 
> 
> In fact, the Hurd on top of L4 microkernel isnt completly dead yet, it's
> just stalled. Indeed if Coyotos will be build with successful to run
> Hurd on top of it, L4-Hurd could be considered dead. Currently we can
> use L4-Hurd as an 'plan B' if Coyotos fail.
> 

I'd like to clarify that I was not speaking about hurd/l4 but about
hurd/pistachio (i.e. pistachio the specific l4 implementation),
hurd/pistachio _is_ dead.
--
-ness-

Re: A simple question

_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd

Re: A simple question

[Tom Bachmann]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> Matheus Morais wrote:
>> 
>> On 4/11/06, *Tom Bachmann* <e_mc_h2 <at> web.de <mailto:e_mc_h2 <at> web.de>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> hurd/pistachio is considered dead. We're currently looking at
>> another (not-yet-existing) microkernel called coyotos.
>> - --
>> - -ness-
>> 
>> 
>> In fact, the Hurd on top of L4 microkernel isnt completly dead yet,
>> it's just stalled. Indeed if Coyotos will be build with successful
>> to run Hurd on top of it, L4-Hurd could be considered
>> dead. Currently we can use L4-Hurd as an 'plan B' if Coyotos fail.
>> 

> I'd like to clarify that I was not speaking about hurd/l4 but about
> hurd/pistachio (i.e. pistachio the specific l4 implementation),
> hurd/pistachio _is_ dead.

Just out of curiosity; what L4 implementation were you considering to
use then?

	eSk

Re: A simple question

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 08:09:30PM +0530, Jayabalan_Aaron wrote:
> first there was gnu-mack, then came l4-pistachio now  coyotes
> if its goin to be a gnu/os, then why not stick with a gnu microkernal,
> why change the microkernal so frequently, is it some thing to do with
> the hurd's expectations

No, it has to do with us, I suppose.  About Mach, I don't know, I wasn't there
at the time, but I suppose it was the only available option.  However, there
seem to be problems with it which are best solved by using a different
microkernel.  Pistachio was considered, because it could solve Mach's
(performance) problems.  However, it doesn't actually do (much) more than
that: the result will be similar to Hurd on Mach, but faster.  It is a lot of
work to write it, though.  Speaking for myself, I can say that I wasn't really
motivated to put in that much work, just for some performance gain.  Also,
Linux has changed to allow several things which only Hurd could do before
(user space file systems, for example), which makes it even less attractive to
work on it.

Coyotos is different.  It would give us a new system with new exciting
features.  Features which aren't going to be present in Linux, because a
complete rewrite would be required for them.  If you're interested, search the
list archive for "capability", "security" and "persistence".  These features
_are_ IMO worth the effort that it takes to port the Hurd to it.

We haven't actually decided that we'll use Coyotos, but it seems likely.  I
agree with you that we must avoid changing kernels all the time, just to get
even more features when it's ready.  Therefore I thing we should (and will)
stick with Coyotos, even if something better comes up (which seems unlikely
at the moment, but you never know  ).  However, this change is a good one,
because we need to build something that's really good, otherwise we don't have
interest in building it.

I hope this explains the reasons behind all the changes a bit.  Note that this
is my personal point of view, which may not be shared by all (or even any 
) others here.

Thanks,
Bas

--

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd