Talk:Mach (kernel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pronunciation 2 Avie Tevanian, etc. 3 BeOS 4 size of traditional kernels in lines of code 5 POV, confusing sentences, and historical information 6 IPC performance 7 Missing citations 8 Long-winded, repetitive, and in some ways confusing

[edit] Pronunciation

How is the word "Mach" pronounced? Like "match", or like "mac", or like "mash", or like German "Bach"?

This info is missing in this article. It should be included. In fact, there has been quite a bit of discussion about this question.

I've always presumed it was named after Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, and was pronounced the same as his name (like Bach). Qwertyus 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I always figured it was pronounced as in "Mach number", which is pronounced like Ernst Mach's name. – Mipadi 16:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But then some webpages say it is pronounced like "mack"? Any other opinions out there? Let us know.

I said I had presumed it was named after Mach. I'm not sure and have removed this unverified info from the page. It may also have been named after him indirectly, via the Mach number. That page says: "Mach number (pronounced "mack" in British English and "mock" in American English)". Qwertyus 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Qwertyus. OK! Now, is there anybody around who knows how (and why so) it is pronounced? Somebody should know! After all, one has to talk about it not only write.... :-) Thank you in advance.

I add here a link to the discussion on the pronunciation on the Mach number page. Maybe we get some info in that way.

Okay. I know for sure that in US English it is pronounced "mock".--Mac Lover ^Talk 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avie Tevanian, etc.

Perhaps we should mention Avie Tevanian here, too. ("Tevanian was an important figure in the development of the Mach kernel while at Carnegie-Mellon.") I think it's very interesting that two important Mach developers are now at top positions in Apple (Mac OS) and Microsoft (research).

Is it still correct to state that the GNU Hurd is the biggest Mach project to date? Darwin's pretty popular as far as kernels in commercial OSes go. BonzoESC 00:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an actual source, but didn't Apple say at one point that there were the biggest seller of desktop Unix now? AlistairMcMillan 02:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article actually needs a quite a bit of work. At one time it was thought that Mach would slowly take over the entire operating system universe, but this has not happened. Except that the most popular operating system in use right now (Windows NT/2K/XP) uses a kernel based partially on the work done on the Mach project. AlistairMcMillan 02:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe this is true. NT uses a classic monokernel, does not use IPC for much of anything, does not make extensive use of user-space servers, and is millions of lines long. NT was a development of VMS, not Mach. Maury 12:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it true, that MACH stands for Microkernel Architectures Considered Harmful?

That's more of a [backronym] than anything else. That's like if FORD stood for Found On Road Dead, Fix Or Repair Daily, or anything that's not some dead dude's name. BonzoESC 18:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BeOS

There is at least one more microkernel system that's left out of the article and that had decent performance: BeOS. Unfortunately I don't know much details, but the system had a real microkernel and servers like input server, application server, media server, net server, etc. In addition, it was and is very fast and responsive, in some cases faster than a Linux system. (Purely from user perspective.) It should be worthwhile to try and dig information about it, as it seemed to be a succesful microkernel based OS. --W-ber

the categorization of the BeOS kernel was discussed extensively on the Kernel article. The documentation describes it as a microkernel, while the developers described it as "modular monolithic." Eventually we reached a compromise and decided to place it under hybrid kernels unless a clear source shows otherwise. MFNickster

[edit] size of traditional kernels in lines of code

As the capability of computers grew, Unix became increasingly cluttered with code; while early kernels might have had 100,000 lines of code, modern kernels have much more. For example, Linux, a Unix successor, has over 33 million lines.

The comparison with Linux is off-key because back when the first Mach was released, Linux did not exist. We need a number of lines of code in a SVr4 kernel or similar. --Joy [shallot] 22:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV, confusing sentences, and historical information

I think the sentence The ultimate "classic" operating system is Unix, so any discussion of more modern systems must start with that one is useless and seriously POV. How does one define "classic" and "modern"? I don't want to enter the debate of what has Unix invented, but this claim is dubious; secondly, even if we admit that Unix is "the ultimate classic OS" (whatever that means, and I really have no clue what it means), it's not clear one can infer "any discussion of more modern systems must start with that one" from that. I suggest either rephrasing that as "Unix being one of the major modern operating systems, we shall start our discussion with it", or something along these lines. Or, we could simply remove this sentence, which IMO does not provide any information about the subject at hand.

Also, I don't understand what is meant by Another ongoing issue was properly handling computing resources: users spend most of their time staring at the screen instead of actually using their computers' resources, and the time share system should give the CPU time to an active user during these periods. What are these periods? To me, this sentence actually describes a non-timesharing system, and such description is unappropriate in this paragraph which is supposed to describe the problems of this era's timesharing systems.

And finally, I don't think that Unix invented pipes; ITS does have pipes (used by accessing the CLA, CLI, CLO and CLU devices), in all versions I have used, and they are described in the revised ITS reference manual, section 3.4.3 (July 1969). Unfortunately, I have been unable to determine from what version on pipes were implemented in ITS, so I cannot be sure which system had them first; anyway I seriously doubt ITS' pipes were implemented after seeing Unix's pipes; more likely the two systems developed pipes independently; oh, and note ITS's pipes worked across the network (since ITS's filesystem is nertwork transparent, it is not really surprising). Well, the article does not claim Unix invented pipes, but it does imply that the fact one can manipulate files through many little programs was invented by Unix; perhaps Unix was the first system to be described as having this philosophy, but one could and would definitely manipulate files using many small utilities under ITS, so I think this needs a rephrase. Sam 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IPC performance

Roughly paragraph 10 under "Mach concepts" starts with a sentence that sounded weird and redundant the first few times I read it, "Performance of the IPC system was an initial performance problem..." It seems like the word performance shouldn't be in there twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.252.0.75 (talk • contribs) 18 april 2006 21:42.

Fixed. Next time, please be bold! Qwertyus 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing citations

Does anyone have sources for the citations that are missing from this page? There are a lot of statements that read as if they are facts but without citations who knows.

[edit] Long-winded, repetitive, and in some ways confusing

IMNSHO the entire article could do with an overhaul. It's long-winded and repetitive, particularly in the latter sections. Also, a better way to show the history of Mach (rather than writing it as a short story at the top) would be to display it in a table.

Also, am I alone in feeling that the article looks like it is going to come to some conclusion on whether or not Mach is a good thing? Reading through the article, I got the idea that the author had some sort of opinion, but it seems to flip-flop from criticising Mach for its IPC overhead through to enthusing about how the IPC bottleneck doesn't have to be that bad (e.g. for L4).

It's always read as a technical paper written by someone in the Mach community with it spending more time comparing Mach with other microkernels rather than just flatly describing Mach. This definitely requires fixing. --68.142.45.140 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)