Oh no. I'm not a Mach fan.
Since the original question was about the nature of microkernels, Mach
is a well-known example from a design standpoint. Amiga's success is
hard to measure since the product failed commercially, albeit in part
by Microsoft's shady maneuverings. Mach lives in the NeXT. Another
commercial product using message-passing microkernel is called Chorus,
produced by a French concern. And, there's QNX as you mentioned. NT
would not be characterized as a message passing system, nor as a
microkernel by any discerning designer.
As far as my studies went, there's a general belief that message
passing tends to be a little slower than kernels like LT's. A
now-defunct project called SPIN at the University of Washington
developed a traditional, procedural kernel using a modified version of
Modula3. They enforced protection within the kernel by using this
strict type-safe language. The idea worked out OK. You could inject
a Web server into the kernel and see impressive throughput. But then
again, you had to code in Modula3.
-
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/