> When Linux was first written it was a Macro-kernel, plain and true.
> Everything the kernel did, it did in itself. Somewhere along the line
> we picked up an external agent for managing bad buffers, bdflush.
> Nothing was thought of it.
>
> In recent incantations we've got what are called 'kernel threads' --
> Really what they amount to are a little piece of the micro-kernel world
> sneaking into the macro-kernel of Linux.
>
> I'm not saying this is bad, just interesting. The point I'm making is
> that if things are working towards clustered computing, Micro-kernels
> have a distinct advantage in this arena. The MACH 4 micro-kernel (of
> which I have not been keeping tabs) would be better modified into a
> fully-cluster-aware-and-capable system than taking the existing Linux
> base.
>
> Last I knew MACH was a semi-stable micro-k... That was a year or so
> ago.
>
> Just an interesting thought blurb... Are we heading towards a
> micro-kernel?
Actually the goal is to fold Wine into the kernel eventually. I figure it
should be done around kernel version 6.6.6.
> Linus, Alan, Anyone?
Oops... Wrong Alan. ]:>
-- Alan Olsen "Carpe Aptenodytes!" alano@ncd.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/