>> What is the status of the kernel=3F >> I am the 'POSIX' guy (I guess), so I am wondering >> about kernel and file system status. > >In regard to kernel design, I would propose that we adopt an MS-Mach >(multiserver, not Microsoft) like approach, albeit with kernel space >"servers" as kernel addons. Thus, we could have an fs module that >handles file desrciptors, etc, a posix module, etc., etc., etc. This >would accomplish two things: To some degree, this is what BeOS already did/does. BFS is a file system add-on. Many things were/are. In fact, you can add almost anything, as I understand it, to the BeOS kernel by making a kernel add-on. >1. Prevent forking the NewOS kernel. Travis has said that he opposes >the intodruction of posix to his kernel. So we don't, we add it as a >kernel module. This (as was pointed out later) is not really true. Travis and I spoke long and hard about this. My recollection (hedge, in case I mis-quote) is that he sees posix as a necessary evil. I think that is pretty much the same way that Be felt. They had their own API for many kernel things (areas, ports, teams, threads, etc), but realized that people would want to port, so they made a posix API, as well. >2. It vastly increases the future flexibility of the kernel. I don't know that much about MS-Mach - why not mail me offlist and we can chat about it.