> > > PostgreSQL is the Mach of the database world.
> > > It has lots of cool sophisticated stuff, but if you attempt to
> > > use it seriously, you discover it isn't sufficiently reliable
> > > and rounded out for production use, instead it appears the result
> > So, in your opinion, does NeXT's use of Mach support or refute your
> > argument?
> That depends. Answer the following for me and I can give you your
> Was Nextstep based on Mach 2.0 or 3.0?
Mach 2 with enhancments. (2.5?)
> How much hacking did they have to do to get it into a useful shape?
A lot from what I understand.
> Which of Mach's touted features did they use? Which did they avoid?
> microkernel, machmaker/mig, ports, i vm, ...
don't make me get out a book, that was a long time ago.. ;-)
TOSFKAR (the operating system formally known as Rhapsody) *is* based on
Mach 3, as is Apple's MkLinux
Nobody really cared if Apple tanked it,
but now if Apple tanks it, it also tanks NeXT,
and we're going to do everything in our power
to make sure that doesn't happen. ... anonymous NeXT employee
<> email@example.com <>