Merge branch 'master' of flubber:~hurd-web/hurd-web

5 files changed, 57 insertions, 84 deletions

diff --git a/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn b/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index c5026afa..00000000
--- a/hurd/faq/which_microkernel.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,81 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2009, 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!meta title="What happened to the L4 / Coyotos / Viengoos microkernels?"]]
-
-L4 was promising but happened to not be suitable for implementing a general-purpose operating system on top of it. See [[history/port_to_l4]] for the historical details.
-
-Coyotos is abandoned upstream
-
-Neal Walfield started working on a newly designed kernel called [[viengoos|microkernel/viengoos]]. Unfortunately, he currently lacks time and the projects it paused.
-
-In the meanwhile, people are thus continuing with [[microkernel/mach]].
-
----
-
-IRC, #hurd, 2011-01-12.
-
-[[!taglink open_issue_documentation]]
-
-    <Pete-J> Hello i am just curious of the development of Hurd - what's the
-      current mission on the microkernel i see projects like l4 and viengoos,
-      will one of these projects replace Mach? or will you stick with Mach
-    <Pete-J> as i understand is that Mach is a first generation microkernel
-      that's very old in design and causes alot of issues
-    <Pete-J> that's where l4 and viengoos comes in - they are trying to be the
-      next generation Mach - am i correct?
-    <neal> l4 is not a drop in replacement for Mach
-    <neal> it doesn't actually do much resource management
-    <neal> for instance, you still have to implement a memory manager
-    <neal> this is where several issues are with Mach
-    <neal> l4 doesn't address those issues; it punts to the operating system
-    <Pete-J> and what about viengoos?
-    <neal> it's unfinished
-    <neal> and it implemented some untested ideas
-    <neal> i.e., parts of viengoos were research
-    <neal> there has not been a sufficient evaluation of those ideas to
-      determine whether they are a good approach
-    <Pete-J> meaning that viengoos is a research kernel that could aid Mach?
-    <neal> I'm not sure I understand your question
-    <Pete-J> Well is viengoos trying to be a replacement for Mach, or will
-      viengoos be an experiment of new ideas that could be implemented in Mach?
-    <Pete-J> i am sorry for my limited english
-    <neal> viengoos was designed with a Hurd-like user-land in mind
-    <neal> in that sense it was a Mach replacement
-    <neal> (unlike L4)
-    <neal> viengoos consisted of a few experiments
-    <neal> one could implement them in mach
-    <neal> but it would require exposing new interfaces
-    <neal> in which case, I'm not sure you could call the result Mach
-    <Pete-J> Well as i understand you develop two microkernels side by side,
-      wouldnt it be more effective to investigate viengoos more and maybe move
-      the focus to viengoos?
-    <antrik> no
-    <antrik> having something working all the time is crucial
-    <antrik> it's very hard to motivate people to work on a project that might
-      be useful, in a couple of years, perhaps...
-    <Pete-J> Well Mach is meant to be replaced one day - i see no reason to
-      keep on developing it just because it works at this moment
-    <Pete-J> *if Mach is meant to be replaced
-    <antrik> it's not at all clear that it will be replaced by something
-      completely different. I for my part believe that modifying the existing
-      Mach is a more promising approach
-    <Pete-J> as i understand man power is something you need - and by spreading
-      out the developers just makes the progress more slow
-    <antrik> but even if it *were* to be replaced one day, it doesn't change
-      the fact that we need it *now*
-    <antrik> all software will be obsolete one day. doesn't mean it's not worth
-      working on
-    <antrik> the vast majority of work is not on the microkernel anyways, but
-      on the system running on top of it
-    <Pete-J> ahh i see
-    <antrik> manpower is not something that comes from nowhere. again, having
-      something working is crucial in a volunteer project like this
-    <antrik> there are no fixed plans
diff --git a/hurd/ng.mdwn b/hurd/ng.mdwn
index de33949d..481386a4 100644
--- a/hurd/ng.mdwn
+++ b/hurd/ng.mdwn
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ This section explains the motivations behind the new design:
   * [[Issues_with_L4_Pistachio]]
   * [[Limitations_of_the_original_Hurd_design]]
 
-  * History of the [[history/port_to_L4]]
+  * History of the [[history/port_to_another_microkernel]]
 
 
 # Work already done
diff --git a/hurd/running/live_cd.mdwn b/hurd/running/live_cd.mdwn
index 42d85c5b..c9360594 100644
--- a/hurd/running/live_cd.mdwn
+++ b/hurd/running/live_cd.mdwn
@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
-You can download a gzipped iso of a Hurd Live CD at
+[[Arch Hurd|hurd/running/arch_hurd/]] offers Hurd LiveCDs at <http://www.archhurd.org/gethurd.php>.
+
+Also you can download a gzipped iso of a Hurd Live CD at
 <http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/>.
 
 The Superunpriveleged crew also offers a tiny Hurd Live CD that is under 10
diff --git a/hurd/running/qemu.mdwn b/hurd/running/qemu.mdwn
index c5b2cf1c..141ab2b1 100644
--- a/hurd/running/qemu.mdwn
+++ b/hurd/running/qemu.mdwn
@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@ Also you can use qemu to easily try one of our [[Hurd_LiveCDs|hurd/running/live_
 
 # What is Needed to create a QEMU image
 
+## Debian Installer
+
+Instructions for creating a qemu image from the install CDs from debian installer can be found in the README alongside the d-i Hurd images: <http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/installer/cdimage/>
+
+## Old method
+
 1. First thing is to install [[/QEMU]].
 2. A [[grub]] boot disk for the floppy disk image needed for booting. The [0\.97 version](ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/grub/grub-0.97-i386-pc.ext2fs) works fine. I downloaded it and renamed to `floppy.img`. Alternatively, the Debian grub-disk package (up till version 0.97-28) is fine as well.
 3. You will need a [Debian/Hurd installation CD](http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-cd). K16 works fine.
diff --git a/hurd/subhurd.mdwn b/hurd/subhurd.mdwn
index cb4a40a8..b8e595d3 100644
--- a/hurd/subhurd.mdwn
+++ b/hurd/subhurd.mdwn
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010 Free Software Foundation,
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 Free Software Foundation,
 Inc."]]
 
 [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ possible to use [[debugging/gdb/noninvasive_debugging]], but this is less
 flexible.)  Vice versa, it is also possible to use a subhurd to debug the
 *main* Hurd system, for example, the latter's root file system.
 
+[[!toc levels=2]]
+
 
 # Howto
 
@@ -139,3 +141,47 @@ translator|translator/ext2fs]]'s [[PID]], but this is no problem, as currently
 [[PID]]s are visible across subhurd boundaries.  (It is a [[!taglink
 open_issue_hurd]] whether this is the right thing to do in
 [[open_issues/virtualization]] contexts, but that's how it currently is.)
+
+
+<a name="unit_testing"></a>
+## Unit Testing
+
+freenode, #hurd channel, 2011-03-06:
+
+From [[open_issues/unit_testing]].
+
+    <youpi> it could be interesting to have scripts that automatically start a
+      sub-hurd to do the tests
+    <youpi> though that'd catch sub-hurd issues :)
+    <foocraft> so a sub-hurd is a hurd that I can run on something that I know
+      works(like linux)?
+    <foocraft> Virtual machine I would think
+    <foocraft> and over a network connection it would submit results back to
+      the host :p
+    * foocraft brain damage
+    <youpi> sub-hurd is a bit like chroot
+    <youpi> except that it's more complete
+    <foocraft> oh okay
+    <youpi> i.e. almost everything gets replaced with what you want, except the
+      micro-kernel
+    <youpi> that way you can even test the exec server for instance, without
+      risks of damaging the host OS
+    <foocraft> and we know the micro-kernel works correctly, right youpi?
+    <youpi> well, at least it's small enough that most bugs are not there
+    <foocraft> 1) all tests run in subhurd 2) output results in a place in the
+      subhurd 3) tester in the host checks the result and pretty-prints it 4)
+      rinse & repeat
+    <youpi> the output can actually be redirected iirc
+    <youpi> since you give the sub-hurd a "console"
+    <foocraft> youpi, yup yeah, so now it's more like chroot if that's the case
+    <youpi> it really looks like chroot, yes
+    <foocraft> but again, there's this subset of tests that we need to have
+      that ensures that even the tester running on the subhurd is valid, and it
+      didn't break because of a bug in the subhurd
+    <tschwinge> As long as you do in-system testing, you'll always (have to)
+      rely on some functionality provided by the host system.
+    <foocraft> the worst thing that could happen with unit testing is false
+      results that lead someone to try to fix something that isn't broken :p
+    <tschwinge> Yes.
+    <youpi> usually one tries to repeat the test by hand in a normal
+      environment