Re: Worlds greatest kernel

["Kyle" <kyleNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I appreciate the replies... but here was my original impetus for this idea.
Several operating systems use different memory maps, shared library loaders,
executable image loaders, etc.  Assuming the instructions where all valid
for the given CPU in the object file, it would seem logical that the
operating system could construct the process map for that particular
application.  This would work better if it was more of a Mach approach where
"OS servers" are loaded for a particular application type.
Kyle
"Brian Reichert" <reichert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20031008033633.GA72071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:12:54PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >     As a goal I far prefer CPU virtualization (byte code like) because
the
> >     operating system can generate a run-time binary image and cache it
in
> >     memory or swap.  I have played the CPU virtualization game before,
using
> >     my DICE compiler as a base.  It is definitely a tough nut to crack.
>
> There was a recent slashdot post about Xen:
>
>   <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/>
>
>   "Xen is a virtual machine monitor for x86 that supports execution
>   of multiple guest operating systems ... and [we] are planning a
>   FreeBSD 4.8 port in the near future..."
>
> Would these people's scheme dovetail into DragonflyBSD?
>
> >
> > -Matt
> >
>
> -- 
> Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert <reichert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 37 Crystal Ave. #303 Daytime number: (603) 434-6842
> Derry NH 03038-1713 USA BSD admin/developer at large