> In fact, we've ported the Mach kernel to the PowerMac and we've ported
> Linux to Mach as an architecture-neutral pseudo machine. There are

Hm, are the code available somewhere on the net?

BTW, may I ask you why you've chosen Linux over *BSD?  To me, it's an
odd decision because Linux's strengths always seemed to lie in its
tightly-coupled-ness with the Intel PC hardware (how many people have
told us that Linux is faster than *BSD?  Yeah, I know more than half
of those are groundless B.S.).  Then it seems to me that there is no
reason that we should chose, for instance, ext2fs over ffs, a proven
technology that has over 10 years of real use.  Also, the lightness
Linux users often attribute is due to Linux kernel's somewhat overly
simple scheduling algorithm, and it's gone if scheduling is done by
Mach MK.  If it's the brand, you can tell me.  I won't get heart
attack from hearing it ;-)

> Server makes sense to me, but then again, that's why I work where I

Oh yes, there IS Lites...  It would be much easier to recompile Lites
on MK/PowerMac than to port Linux server to it.

> do. Why go about reimplementing the wheel for each O/S? Especially
> since there's a whole range of macs to support out there and it's not
> just 'one' port that you have to do -

Last I checked, Mach's device driver structure is heavily derived from
that of the BSD UNIX (particularly 4.3BSD).  That'd make it easier to
port Mach device driver for PowerMacs to BSD, wouldn't it?  I don't
know what and how much you guys have done to CMU's MK at OSF,
though...

BTW, again, speaking of SMP, are you planning to port this MK to
DayStar's Genesis MP (four 604s clocked at 150MHz)?  It'd be a shame
if this SMP-ready kernel weren't to run on that screamer...

ken