3 ms·
They'd need to replace Mach with something less inefficient first. Mach is a pre-Liedtke microkernel. It's slow at IPC. Which is bad when IPC is what it has to
by snvzz 4y ago
They'd need to replace Mach with something less inefficient first.
Mach is a pre-Liedtke microkernel. It's slow at IPC. Which is bad when IPC is what it has to do the most in a proper multi-server system.
- pjmlp 4y agoRegardless of what we think, Apple has been quite clear at WWDC what the end goal is, no more kexts allowed when there is a corresponding userspace framework for the respective driver class. This the the best thing in commercial software, decisions happen, and there are no forks botching the final outcome by disgruntled devs.
- Pasta123 4y agoso ELI5 here, but aren't modern computers fast enough to overcome many of its original shortcomings? I'm not a software engineer, but out of curiosity.
- pjmlp 4y agoNot only they are, many hardcode anti-microkernels folks kind of forget their beloved monolithic Linux kernel nowadays runs on top of type 1 hypervisors (which is basically a tiny micro-kernel), and then there is this whole thing with Docker and Kubernetes deployments for every executable.
- Pasta123 4y agoAh. So there's no dire need for Apple to improve Mach's performance. I wonder if the computer industry in general tend to overlook at performance, that's how I feel about the hardware community, where a tiny differences in benchmarks always taking the crown.