Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) is /hurd versioned? Or is /hurd a 'special' filesystem(kinda like devfs > for linux), that lists the available services that have been compiled into > the kernel?
Hell, no. Why would one want to compile services into the kernel? *schudder* It's just a directory like /bin, which containy binaries. But it contains very special binaries, as has been said before. > 2) Could the ideas that the items placed in /hurd be useful outside of hurd? > Ie, could other operating systems make use of translators? Of course you can change Linux so that is essentially the Hurd. But I don't see how any existing system could use them. > Now, for some other analogies, to existing practices, showing that /hurd is > not needed, *at all*. Of course it is not needed. Just as there is no need for /bin. Or /lib. Or /home. You can put everything in one directory. And with the Shadowfs translator you could actually kind of do this if you like. ;-) > In the current FHS, there is documentation about /lib/modules. Currently, > this describes Linux drivers. However, I see no reason it can't be used for > hurd as well(hurd purists will say that because Linux came up with it, it > *CAN'T* be good, so they don't want to use it). Translators are no kernel modules. They are normal binaries, but with special functionality. > However, unlike /hurd, /lib/modules does not contain any reference to the > kernel that is being run. Sorry, I don't see any reference to GNU Mach here. > I'd much rather have hurd use /lib/modules, instead > of tainting file system layouts with special /linux, /hurd, /freebsd crap. Of course you do, because you don't understand what /hurd is about. It is about the Hurd server binaries, which are started by users and should not be hidden in a directory like /lib/you/cant/find/me/. > hurd. In fact, there already is use, in Linux. Think user-space nfs(a > kernel-based nfs module talking to a user-space nfs daemon). cfs works this > way, as does probably sfs. Translators can provide arbitrary interfaces, not only the file system interface. Thus, this is something completely different. > So, why then do we really need /hurd? What are the *real* reasons? The reason is that the stuff in there is semantically different from everything that exists in Unix and ever will exist in Unix. Cheers, GNU/Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Jährling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \\ http://stdio.cjb.net/ Debian GNU/Hurd user && Debian GNU/Linux user \\ http://www.gnu.org/ The Hurd Hacking Guide: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hacking-guide/ ["We're way ahead of you here. The Hurd has always been on the ] [ cutting edge of not being good for anything." -- Roland McGrath ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]