rajeevc@mipos2.intel.com (Rajeev Chandrasekhar) (10/18/88)
Now that Steve Jobs has come up with NeXT, I thought
I should look up Mach. Can someone mail me some
info about papers , books detailing mach.
Thanks -
Rajeev
Rajeev Chandrasekhar
Intel Corp >> theres someone in my head, and its not me <<
2625, Walsh Ave MS SC4-59 (408) 765-4632
Santa Clara, CA 95051 {hplabs,oliveb}!intelca!mipos2!rajeevc bzs@xenna (Barry Shein) (10/21/88)
>Now that Steve Jobs has come up with NeXT, I thought >I should look up Mach. Can someone mail me some >info about papers , books detailing mach. > Thanks - > Rajeev Some I have here are (or from biblios of the same): Mike Accetta, Robert Baron et al, "Mach: A New Kernel Foundation for Unix Development", Proceedings of Summer Usenix, July 1986 Young, M.W., et al, "The Duality of Memory and Communications in Mach", ACM, November 1987. Rashid, Richard F., "Threads of a New System", Unix Review, Volume 4 Number 8, August 1986. Tevanian, Avadis, Jr., Rashid, Richard F, et al, "Mach Threads and the Unix Kernel: The Battle for Control", Proceedings of Summer Usenix, 1987. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
edward@csvaxa.UUCP (Edward Wilkinson) (11/04/88)
Under a heading `Controversy' in issue 2 of the Usenix Computing
Systems journal, there is an interesting article about availability of
OS source, with respect to Unix & other systems. Could Mach (or a
sanitized AT&T cleansed version!) be a candidate for replacing Unix in
the academic world? I've read that once CMU have removed all the AT&T
source, they intend to distribute it for a neglegible fee, so that
people like the Free Software Foundation can use it for Gnu, among
other things. Mach seems to have some of the features mentioned in the
article. e.g. lightweight processes, simple IPC & the simplicity and
elegance of the early Unix systems.
Just wondering. Sorry if this this already been discussed - stuff
takes longer to get to these shores :-(
--
Ed Wilkinson @ Computer Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ
uucp: {uunet,watmath!cantuar}!vuwcomp!csvaxa!edward DTE: 530163000005
Janet/Greybook: E.Wilkinson@nz.ac.massey Phone: +64 63 69099 x8587
CSnet/ACSnet/Internet: E.Wilkinson@massey.ac.nz New Zealand = GMT+12rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (11/08/88)
> Could Mach (or a >sanitized AT&T cleansed version!) be a candidate for replacing Unix in >the academic world? I've read that once CMU have removed all the AT&T >source, they intend to distribute it for a neglegible fee ... The Unix source license uses "trade secret" terms, not just copyright. In the United States, at least, this is a much more powerful form of protection than just copyright. If I read ATT source, then sit down and release my free rewrite then I will expect that the nice ATT lawyers will ask me to explain, in court, how I did not use the "techniques and methods" which I agreed to hold secret when I signed their piece of paper. This is apparently (one of) the reasons that Stallman refuses to look at ANY code that is covered by a Unix source license. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and do not presume to speak for RMS, CMU, ATT, or any other acronym. -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (11/10/88)
>> Could Mach (or a >>sanitized AT&T cleansed version!) be a candidate for replacing Unix in >>the academic world? I've read that once CMU have removed all the AT&T >>source, they intend to distribute it for a neglegible fee ... > >The Unix source license uses "trade secret" terms, not just copyright. >In the United States, at least, this is a much more powerful form of >protection than just copyright. Not only that, but Mach is *not* free of AT&T code, even in the kernel. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,uunet}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."