What do to about BitKeeper and the Linux Kernel (was: BitKeeper licence critic)

Jeroen Dekkers jeroen at dekkers.cx
Fri Mar 8 23:40:22 UTC 2002

On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:39:37AM +0100, Wolfgang J?hrling wrote:
> Hi!
> MJ Ray <markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen at dekkers.cx> wrote:
> > > The whole BK thing is just another reason to dislike Linux for
> > > me. (Most of the other reasons are technical)
> > 
> > If you're talking general about the microkernel vs hybrid-monolithic, isn't
> > that debate still open?  In *theory* micro should win, but in practice, most
> > of the successful ones are hybrids at the moment.
> There are proprietary microkernel systems which are quite good (except
> for being non-free, of course) and even fast. QNX and BeOS are examples.
> But there's no production-quality free microkernel system yet.

I think you can say L4 is a production-quality microkernel, it's also
free. They even hacked Linux to run on it, L4Linux. L4 also proves
that microkernels *can* be fast. For the people interested, see
http://www.l4ka.org/ and http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/L4/.

JEroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers at jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen at openprojects
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20020309/6ffcd279/attachment.sig>

More information about the Discussion mailing list