I believe that licensing QNX would require a) a lot of re-writing, because the BSD-like components have been modified to integrate with the Mach-like components and b) it would eliminate the possibility of an open-source kernel, unless the QNX source has already been published.
I don't think there's any particularly good reason to dump Mach; it provides a convenient set of abstractions, and over time the Darwin & xnu engineers can work out any performance wrinkles that still exist.
And not only that, QNX does not support memory protection! It is a dedicated low latency real-time operating system. It is designed to run time critical software for factory automation, power plants, process control etc. Not to run lots of processes and play iTunes in the back ground.
Comments
Originally posted by dfryer
I believe that licensing QNX would require a) a lot of re-writing, because the BSD-like components have been modified to integrate with the Mach-like components and b) it would eliminate the possibility of an open-source kernel, unless the QNX source has already been published.
I don't think there's any particularly good reason to dump Mach; it provides a convenient set of abstractions, and over time the Darwin & xnu engineers can work out any performance wrinkles that still exist.
And not only that, QNX does not support memory protection! It is a dedicated low latency real-time operating system. It is designed to run time critical software for factory automation, power plants, process control etc. Not to run lots of processes and play iTunes in the back ground.