From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Luke A. Guest" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ironclad, the hard-Real Time capable POSIX-like kernel written in SPARK/Ada, received an nlnet grant Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:21:26 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 10:21:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9dba679a357b26871a0caf2eb4e4660b"; logging-data="1742258"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WMQukzLCgz+djDfC3L83Wp99KxQ2EVVc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KZ4MpbPNrAUrVRKF/E+thz3zjHM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:66418 List-Id: On 07/10/2024 00:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 00:02:34 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote: > >> On 06/10/2024 22:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 20:46:16 +0100, Luke A. Guest wrote: >>> >>>> MacOS uses Mach which is well known for being a terrible >>>> implementation of the microkernel, that's why it's a hybrid, same >>>> reason NT got changed into a hybrid too. >>> >>> And yet they are both still outperformed by Linux on the same hardware. >> >> What's your point? I said Mach is the worst example of a microkernel, >> it's been proven, decades ago. > > So where is there a better one? It’s long been established that > microkernel performance is terrible, and the theoretical reliability > advantages have failed to materialize. What reason is there left to use > them? None. > > After 40 or more years trying to tout the idea, it’s time to give up. I already said, L4. But you don't want to listen you just want to slag off something you don't or won't understand and bang on about Linux, which was always meant to be a server OS, not a desktop one.