There have actually been a few rumors lately that Apple is indeed unhappy with the Mach kernel. It is a very good kernel for portability, but it is known to be quite slow. Microkernels in general are slower. There are a few Mach kernel derivitives that are a good deal faster than Mach (i.e., L4 and its derivatives).
Microkernals ARE slow. However Mac os X does not use a mach microkernal. Specifically it uses a kernal called XNU. This includes a lot of BSD, as well as mach, and is NOT a microkernal. The XNU kernal is a derivative of mach and Apple have changed it quite a lot. If you look at the real world performance of the kernal in osX you'll find that it doesn't have performance issues at all.
If you can find any evidence of any Apple engineer/executive expressing a dissatisfaction with the mach kernal then why don't you link us to the article.
Microkernals ARE slow. However Mac os X does not use a mach microkernal. Specifically it uses a kernal called XNU. This includes a lot of BSD, as well as mach, and is NOT a microkernal. The XNU kernal is a derivative of mach and Apple have changed it quite a lot. If you look at the real world performance of the kernal in osX you'll find that it doesn't have performance issues at all.
If you want to know exactly what XNU is read this article:
If you can find any evidence of any Apple engineer/executive expressing a dissatisfaction with the mach kernal then why don't you link us to the article.
i'm not familiar w/ Next...can you tell me about it?
There are several sites talking about. For example: this and this. If you use X11 on OS X, you can always install an OpenStep-like window manager. Downloading/compilation/installation are automated if you go through Fink.
Comments
Originally posted by xdaniel
There have actually been a few rumors lately that Apple is indeed unhappy with the Mach kernel. It is a very good kernel for portability, but it is known to be quite slow. Microkernels in general are slower. There are a few Mach kernel derivitives that are a good deal faster than Mach (i.e., L4 and its derivatives).
Microkernals ARE slow. However Mac os X does not use a mach microkernal. Specifically it uses a kernal called XNU. This includes a lot of BSD, as well as mach, and is NOT a microkernal. The XNU kernal is a derivative of mach and Apple have changed it quite a lot. If you look at the real world performance of the kernal in osX you'll find that it doesn't have performance issues at all.
If you can find any evidence of any Apple engineer/executive expressing a dissatisfaction with the mach kernal then why don't you link us to the article.
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0
I'd like to eventually try to get something like NeXTStep or Openstep running.
It's been my obsessive dream to run that system, or own a NeXT box.
why run next when u can run macos X? surely osX >> neXT
Originally posted by Archstudent
Microkernals ARE slow. However Mac os X does not use a mach microkernal. Specifically it uses a kernal called XNU. This includes a lot of BSD, as well as mach, and is NOT a microkernal. The XNU kernal is a derivative of mach and Apple have changed it quite a lot. If you look at the real world performance of the kernal in osX you'll find that it doesn't have performance issues at all.
If you want to know exactly what XNU is read this article:
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
If you can find any evidence of any Apple engineer/executive expressing a dissatisfaction with the mach kernal then why don't you link us to the article.
Originally posted by Archstudent
why run next when u can run macos X? surely osX >> neXT
Yeah, I know. It's just the curiosity in me, I guess.
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0
Yeah, I know. It's just the curiosity in me, I guess.
some things are fun to do "just because you can"
Originally posted by Archstudent
some things are fun to do "just because you can"
Yep.
Originally posted by builttospill
i'm not familiar w/ Next...can you tell me about it?
There are several sites talking about. For example: this and this. If you use X11 on OS X, you can always install an OpenStep-like window manager. Downloading/compilation/installation are automated if you go through Fink.
Originally posted by builttospill
interesting stuff. let me know if you figure out how to get it going...so it's only supposed to be able to run on Next boxes?
The early days, yes. Later it was ported to other computers.