JavaLobby and JavaOS

[Sean McDirmid]

On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Fletcher E  Kittredge wrote:

> As an ex-Mach and C hacker, let me say that there are real good
> technical reasons that Mach and Hurd failed.  The micro-kernel
> architecture is dog slow; adding Java to the mix is not going to speed
> it up.
> 
> Before wasting good Java developer time on this, please have someone
> you trust go back and read all the papers from the late 80's, early
> 90's which detail the significant performance problems with a
> micro-kernel architecture...

Now hold on here, if I understand it, the micro-kernal architecture was
slow b/c of the way it kept its form of modularity, through runtime
barriers and abstractions.  The great thing about Java code is that it is
safe and this safety can be shown (lacking in kaffe but I've written a
verifier for kimera - kimera.cs.washington.edu).  Several good performing
(and commercial) operating systems have been "derived" from
micro-kernal's, such as NT, NextStep and perhaps the upcoming BeOS. How
about a derived micro-kernal that takes Java code, compiles it, and places
it close to the micro-kernal as a trusted extension?  Now we don't have a
micro-kernal anymore but you might be able to get the performance you are
looking for. You still get the safety and abstraction that the original
micro-kernal provided (through the virtual machine compiled to machine
code interface).

Sean McDirmid
kimera.cs.washington.edu