If so, you should remember that comparing with a current L4Linux will be like comparing apples and oranges (depending on what you intend to measure, that is).
You're absolutely right.
Yes, comparing modern l4linux and 2.0 mklinux won't yield too much. I already replied to author, but since you sent copy to the list, I'll reply to list as well. There is a paper which compares MkLinux vs. L4Linux. Pager is quite old (about 5 years AFAIR), however ... I remember reading in that very paper that - no proof that Mach based systems give only about 5% degradation was found, thus it is not being concedered a valid statement. Then comparison benchmarks are being given (though never analyzed). Extending same logic, I could say following: Paper is out, but due to lack of independently verified results and/or infrustrure required to complete such evaluation, results should not seen as valid. Thus, IMHO currently paper is of interest as a sample usenix submition, but not a research report. (until results could be duplicated, which requires working x86 binaries of both l4linux and mklinux running 2.0 kernels) Farid said that he at some point compiled (more than once) mklinux for x86. Perhaps, would be worth doing it again, otherwise often seen claim that l4 is better microkernel, is more like rant. I did not mean to offend anyone, but just trying to see which claims are valid and which are just wishful thinking. Sincerely, IS.