If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Guess I'll hang on to my Hasselblad V
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:22:47 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
Stefan Patric wrote: I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own purposes. It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia which is usually reliable for "nerd" input. Apple took the Mach kernel and massaged it to suit its purposes for OS X. I don't know if that code is available, but under the Open Source license, it's suppose to be. Although, I'm sure Mach, in some form or other, is floating around the open source development community. There are some, me included, that prefer micro-kernels over Linux and BSD's standard monolithic ones. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. At the level I use them, probably no difference. However one important change to Mac OS X will come out in the 10.6 release this late summer. Very generally, monolithic kernels work best with servers while micros are more suitable for desktops. Part of it is to get full benefit of 64 bit processors and the rest, perhaps more important is for multi core / multi CPU environments. The OS has changed how tasks are queued for execution in order that resources be maximized without application programmers needing to worry much about the target CPU architecture. Mo http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral Sounds like the way cluster supercomputer kernel-OSes work, so that how the app is distributed and executed through the cluster is transparent to the user, and doesn't require special compiling of the app itself. as well as the use of the graphics processor as an additional CPU (OpenCL) - requires Apps to be compiled for it however. (Same link above). [Not sure if my machine will support that however]. Don't know about the Mac, but I read a couple years ago, that some team was working on a Linux kernel that would automatically distribute execution of the OS, apps, etc. over multi-core/multi-cpus without the need for custom compile of anything except the kernel. Ain't progress grand? Stef |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Guess I'll hang on to my Hasselblad V
In article , Stefan Patric
wrote: I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own purposes. It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia which is usually reliable for "nerd" input. Apple took the Mach kernel and massaged it to suit its purposes for OS X. actually next did for nextstep/openstep and apple inherited that. I don't know if that code is available, but under the Open Source license, it's suppose to be. it's available. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Guess I'll hang on to my Hasselblad V | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | July 17th 09 08:41 AM |
Guess I'll hang on to my Hasselblad V | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 1 | July 16th 09 01:23 PM |
[photo] guess where ... | Troy Piggins[_12_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | April 7th 08 12:57 PM |
Hang on! | Douglas. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | March 22nd 07 01:40 AM |
Guess which leaf this is | Cynicor | Digital Photography | 9 | December 30th 06 10:47 AM |