Re: If QNX is successful, why NOT GNU Microkernels

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Mach has some issues that seem to make it intrinsically slow[1],
   Hurd has its own issues on top of it that makes it even worse[2],
   and functionality-wise it doesn't really seem to give much more
   than a pair of funky userspace filesystems like the ftp translator,
   compared to monolithic kernels like a modern linux or bsd.  And the
   userspace is the same.

And better security, well designed, far more stable since the system
won't crash if the file-system/driver/etc fubars.

   QNX is succesful because it's small and fast.

And using QNX is un-ethical, so it can be as fast as it wants, as small
as it wants, but it will still suck since you can't use it without
giving up your freedom.

   Hurd is neither, and is so behind the curve that it's hard to find
   developers motivated by it.  Especially since it's very hard to see
   what Hurd could propose that is not already in the other ones.

And you base these claims on what?

   [2] follow what a simple read() in a C program has to do before it
       returns with the results and cry

What is has to do, and how fast it does it are completely different
things; also note that the Hurd is completely unoptimised.

Cheers.