This all sounds very good to me. The low-level stuff is what I am most interested in.
Recommend a good starting place on the L4 docs? or any other L4 port info? Sorry for all the requests for help, but I am wanting to get a feel for what the group is doing and where the development is headed. Thanks. __ Donnie Quoting Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I like device drivers, scheduling, memory managment, security. > > I've read that device drivers are a good and simpler way to get > > started in kernel development... > > It sounds to me that you are interested in working on the L4 port, > particularly the device driver framework. It would be very nice if > there would be some usable code for that (which may be replaced > completely again later, as I'm sure implementing things will cause some > changing of minds), so I very much encourage that. :-) > > >>Another source of information is IRC. There are a lot of people who > >>can help you and some that might scare you away. But you can have a > >>look on #hug and #hurd on irc.freenode.net for general Hurd discussion > >>and on #hurd-l4 if you are interested in the L4 Hurd development. > > > > Is it expected that Hurd will completely move to the L4 microkernel? > > In other words, should development not be focused on Mach anymore > > and just on L4? > > It depends who you ask. :-) I think everyone agrees that Mach is not > the future microkernel for the Hurd. L4 probably is (although possibly > not the only one). Currently, there is a working GNU/Hurd system on > Mach. The L4 port is not workable at all yet, it only just executed its > first program. > > So if we assume that L4 is indeed the way to go, it will still take some > time before it will be as usable as Mach. The question is then if we > should all make that happen sooner, or if we should fix bugs in the Mach > version while "waiting" for the L4 port to "happen". Because different > people answer the question differently, something in between is > happening. Bugs get fixed in the Mach version, and work on L4 is done. > > Because most bugfixes on the Mach port can be used on the L4 port > without much (or any) change, this bug fixing is not a waste of time. ;-) > > However, I would definitely encourage you to work on the L4 port if you > like to do low-level stuff. It needs quite a lot of work and not > everyone likes this type of programming. > > Thanks, > Bas > > -- > I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). > If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. > Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text > in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. > Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. > For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
