From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id AAA84108 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:01:28 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id AAA57791 for linux-list; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:00:18 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id AAA61286 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:00:16 -0800 (PST) mail_from (torbjorn.gannholm@fra.se) Received: from x.fra.se (x.fra.se [193.12.220.1]) by sgi.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id AAA05218 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 00:00:07 -0800 (PST) mail_from (torbjorn.gannholm@fra.se) Received: from fra.se by x.fra.se via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI.AUTO) for id JAA01966; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:06:49 +0100 Message-ID: <365D0C17.73AB1509@fra.se> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:06:48 +0100 From: "Torbjörn Gannholm" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP12) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com" Subject: GNU/Hurd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Have you ever considered the GNU/Hurd for SGI? It has some good points: 1) It is designed to be 100% reentrant from scratch and is also heavily multithreaded. 2) Basic kernel is minuscule. 3) Added functionality (files, memory, authorization, scheduling, etc) comes from "servers" which can be replaced at will or even have different ones running at the same time. The point is you can easily have a mix of proprietary/freeware/own-design for different functionalities. Different tasks with conflicting interests could run against different servers and, above all, totally ignore unused servers. 4) According to the developers it is extremely stable, errors never resulting in anything worse than an interruptible hang. A possible minus is the message-passing between the servers which might be time-consuming. Still, my feeling is that this could be a real winner on flexibility and performance. Any comments? -- /Torbjörn This message is a personal message from Torbjörn Gannholm and does not necessarily represent the opinion of my employer.