🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience)

In article <17653@cs.utexas.edu>, rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
> sp@gregoire.osf.fr (Simon Patience) writes, among explanations of OSF
> history and status, that:
> 
> > OSF/1, simplistically, is the integration of Mach 2.5 microkernel and
> > BSD 4.4...
> 
> This is incorrect on two counts.  First, Mach 2.5 is not a "microkernel"
> implementation--it still contains conventional kernel functions. 

By this statement I was trying to imply that it was only the microkernel
part of the Mach 2.5 distribution that was used and not the Unix part
(although for the pedants, I'm sure a line or two slipped in). In fact the
Mach 3.0 kernel was based on the 2.5 "microkernel" and only the IPC interfaces
changed significantly (although again I'm sure other changes have been
made, sigh, the things you have to do to protect against flames)

> Second, OSF/1 could not have
> integrated BSD 4.4, because BSD 4.4 is not done yet--at least not accor-
> ding to the folks at Berkeley!  Probably what is meant here is that OSF/1
> has incorporated some of the Berkeley "Reno" code, Reno being the name
> attached to a pre-4.4 release of code intended for developers who want to
> try it out and shake out the bugs.

Well, I did say *simplistically*. In fact OSF and Berkeley worked closely
sharing what was to become 4.3 Reno and will become 4.4. Bugs found and 
fixed at OSF will be in 4.4 and vice versa.

If you had wanted a technically precise and accurate description then
you can always attend the OSF/1 internals course.

Simon.

  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp

Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 115