If Mach was the failure point, why?

If Mach was the failure point, why?

Posted Jul 1, 2010 17:20 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
In reply to: If Mach was the failure point, why? by patrick_g
Parent article: GNU HURD: Altered visions and lost promise (The H)

Here's an interesting attempt to overcome such problems:

Moreover, Nemesis has been designed such that these Quality of Service guarantees are meaningful: In a microkernel environment, an application is typically implemented by a number of processes, most of which are servers performing work on behalf of more than one client. This leads to enormous difficulty in accounting for resource usage. In a kernel-based system, multimedia applications spend most of their time in the kernel, leading to similar problems.

(From the Nemesis documentation.) That was ten years ago now, however, and I guess nobody picked it up when the funding ran out.

---

(Log in to post comments)