Could you please name the most significant differences?
Mach is first generation, which should be seen as proof of concept (microkernel being the concept), and was slow.
The second generation was spawned by Liedtke's L4, which basically attacks the performance problem of the first generation, making it negligible.
The third generation makes capabilities a first class citizen, core to the design. Its main representative is seL4.
As an added note, multiserver is a better fit for SMP than locks and the lock contention they imply.
Thank you! How did they tackle the performance problems?
The paper "From L3 to seL4: What Have We Learnt in 20 Years of L4 Microkernels?"[0] covers most of this from a 20 years after perspective.
[0] http://sigops.org/s/conferences/sosp/2013/papers/p133-elphin...
Re:Fuchsia OS Introduction
by TickleSteve on Tuesday March 26, 2019 @09:34AM
(#19491603)
Mach wasn't the first generation, there were the Aleph and Accent kernels that were predecessors to Mach.
Mach is first generation. It isn't THE first generation. Just one microkernel (Mach v3 that is) which is still part of that generation.
Re:Fuchsia OS Introduction
by sagartewari01 on Tuesday March 26, 2019 @05:09AM
(#19490217)
S
Because Mach. First generation microkernel. Slow. The microkernel world has moved way past that, whereas Hurd has stayed behind still using Mach. [0]
[0] https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/