diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | open_issues/benefits.mdwn | 86 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn | 2 |
2 files changed, 88 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/benefits.mdwn b/open_issues/benefits.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..da1248c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/open_issues/benefits.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 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]]."]]"""]] + +[[!tag open_issue_documentation]] + +What are the benefits of a native GNU/Hurd system, now that Linux et al. can do +so much (think [[hurd/translator]]s: FUSE, [[hurd/subhurd]]s: User-Mode-Linux, +etc.). + +It is possible to begin [[implementing_Hurd_on_top_of_another_system]], but... + +IRC, #hurd, August / September 2010 + + <marcusb> ArneBab: but Neal and I were not happy with that alone. We were + looking for deeper improvements to the system, for, I think, sound reasons. + That is what brought us to the L4/Coyotos technologies + <marcusb> ArneBab: as you are writing a kernel in user space, you can still do + kernel improvements there + <marcusb> ArneBab: if you take it very far, you end up with a kernel that runs + Linux in user space (just flip the two) for the drivers + <marcusb> ArneBab: that is what the L4 people did with the DDE + +([[DDE]]) + + <marcusb> ArneBab: so, with these different cuts, there are different + opportunities. on the one end, you can run Linux as normal and get some of + the Hurd features such as translators in some programs. At the other end, + you can do whatever you want and run some linux code for the drivers or none + at all. + <marcusb> ArneBab: one of the big questions then becomes: at which point can + the advantages offered by the Hurd be realized? + <marcusb> ArneBab: and that's not entirely clear to me + <marcusb> when I worked on this with Neal, we pushed further and further into + need-to-change-everything land + <marcusb> while the current efforts on the Hurd seem to be more equivalent to + the could-run-it-in-userspace-on-top-of-Linux camp + <ArneBab> marcusb: for that I think we need a way to move towards them step by + step. Would it be possible to get the advantages of better resource + allocation with a Viengoos in userspace, too? + <ArneBab> and when that is stable, just switch over? + <marcusb> ArneBab: I don't know. I suspect these people will know before us: + http://lxc.sourceforge.net/ + <ArneBab> something like implementing flip points: flip Linux with Hurd to Hund + with Linux. Flip Mach with L4 to L4 with Mach. + <ArneBab> lxc sounds interesting. + <marcusb> note that these efforts address security concerns more than other + concerns + <marcusb> so they will get isolation long before sharing is even considered + <marcusb> but some of the issues are the same + <marcusb> once you allow malware to do what it wants, it's a small step to also + allow the user to what he wants :) + <ArneBab> it kinda looks like hacking it where it doesn’t really fit again… + <ArneBab> there I ask myself when the point comes that doing a cleaner design + offsets the popularity + <ArneBab> they are pushing more and more stuff into userspace + <ArneBab> which is a good thing (to me) + <ArneBab> it’s hard to clearly describe how, but even though I like having more + stuff in userspace, the way it is bolted onto Linux doesn’t feel good for me. + <ArneBab> FUSE is cool, but if I use it, I am at a disadvantage compared to a + non-fuse user + <ArneBab> while in the Hurd, these additional options are on eqal footing. + <marcusb> ArneBab: are they pushing more and more into user space? I don't + think so. I see more of the reverse, actually + <marcusb> or maybe both + <ArneBab> FUSE, lxd and scheduling in userspace move to userspace + <ArneBab> well, KMS moved to the kernel + <ArneBab> to avoid flickering when switching between X and the console? + <ArneBab> marcusb: Do you experience FUSE lxc and such being secondclass in + Linux, too, or is that just a strange feeling of me? + <ArneBab> marcusb: and that splits the users into those who can get stuff into + the kernel and those who can only work in userspace – which I don’t really + like. + <ArneBab> That’s one more advantage of the Hurd: eqal footing for all (except + the Mach hackers, but they have a very limited terrain) + <marcusb> ArneBab: but UML kernel module is minimal, and Linus didn't have a + principled objection to it (but just wanted a more general solution) + <marcusb> ArneBab: as a side note, although people keep complaining, the linux + kernel seems to be growing steadily, so getting stuff into the kernel doesn't + seem too hard. 8-O diff --git a/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn b/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn index ea06da44..a3e367ce 100644 --- a/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/implementing_hurd_on_top_of_another_system.mdwn @@ -61,3 +61,5 @@ IRC, #hurd, August / September 2010 <marcusb> the point is, that if you don't care for kernel improvements, and are sufficiently happy with the translator stuff, it's not hard to bring the Hurd to Linux or BSD + +(Continue: [[benefits]].) |