J. Grant wrote: > This is what I am interested in finding out, how good is BeOS's > implementation for process communication, and how the kernel > architecture works. Providing OBOS is virtually POSIX compliant I don't > see anything that would stop anyone getting a GNU system with OBOS > kernel off the ground within a few weeks. (Famous last words perhaps). Even if this were possible, which I doubt, it would be entirely beside the point, and uninteresting to me or any of the other BeOS faithful, I suspect. I tried Linux et al years ago, the reason I ended up with BeOS is because the UNIX variants are way too much of a pain in the butt. Besides, the orientation between the two couldn't be more different. Everything in every one of your e-mails so far says you are speaking UNIX-lingo, BeOS does not. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. God only knows why you'd even want to do this. The only reason I can glean is that you're interested to see how the kernel is different than a typical Linux kernel. The way to do that would be to play around with a BeOS system, not try turn BeOS into some ugly franken-unix. The BeOS kernel is serving an entirely different set of goals, a fact you'd be obscuring by taking it out of its natural habitat. None of the other people who made this point were able to get through to you, so I doubt I will either, but I think it's important to stress every now and then that BeOS is a very, very different beast than the unixes, and we LIKE it that way.