Re: ah, here it is

[Niels Möller]

Paul Emsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > "TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> TB> I found it on the website, you want the technetcast site, and
> TB> then click on "codebytes".
> 
>   This was an interesting interview (it was nice to hear what
>   you sound like Thomas :-) and I encourage all to go listen to
>   it (although, for me, it involved using non-Free software, eek!)

Is there any chance to get a typescript of the interview? I haven't
figured out how to listen to it.

/Niels

HURD and mach

[Nic Ferrier]

>>> John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 24-Aug-00 7:50:24 PM >>>

I'm no HURD expert but I'll have a go at answering these... perhaps a
HURD expert can correct any wrong answers.

>1. There are several Machs:
>GNUmach
>RT Mach
>The Mach project 
>   Is there a prefered Mach for the Hurd?

gnumach was developed to run the HURD and the HURD is still (just
about) dependant on it.

The current view is that it would be better running HURD on top of
Oskit Mach since that is being actively developed (the HURD project
doesn't have enough developers to keep the HURD and gnumach going full
steam).


>2. Can the Hurd be run on other Machs?

There are mixed reports. Some people AFAIK have managed to get HURD
to run on Oskit. I'm not sure how much hacking this involves though.


>3. Is the prefered Mach changing as the Hurd is developed? 
>Or  is it fairly static?

See above.


>4. Is the public interface to a Mach well defined, and the various 
>versions are simply different implementations?

Yes and no. Mach has changed quite a bit from version to version.
Different implementations often turn out to be based on different
versions.


>5  Perhaps a brief history, pointing out which branch of Mach is
>relevant to the hurd.

I believe there is one, either in the archives or amongst the links
Jeff posted here the other day.


Nic Ferrier

Unidentified subject!

[John Smith]

Versions of Mach:

I am thoroughly confused. Can I ask a few "Machs from the view point of
the Hurd" questions?

1. There are several Machs:
  GNUmach
  RT Mach
  The Mach project 
(at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/www/mach.html)

   Is there a prefered Mach for the Hurd?

2. Can the Hurd be run on other Machs?

3. Is the prefered Mach changing as the Hurd is developed? Or
   is it fairly static?

4. Is the public interface to a Mach well defined, and the various versions
   are simply different implementations?

5  Perhaps a brief history, pointing out which branch of Mach is
   relevant to the hurd.

Hoping someone has the time.
 
John

Re: ah, here it is

[Paul Emsley]

> "TB" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

TB> I found it on the website, you want the technetcast site, and
TB> then click on "codebytes".

I'm surprised that this hasn't been followed up
  (extensively). 

This was an interesting interview (it was nice to hear what
  you sound like Thomas :-) and I encourage all to go listen to
  it (although, for me, it involved using non-Free software, eek!)

--PE;


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
 http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/~paule

Re: Some questions on Hurd (*not* the release date ;-)

[Paul Emsley]

> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> David DeTinne wrote:
>> 
>> Has anyone else seen this on slashdot?
>> 
>> It is a visual map of the history of the unix variants.
>> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.html

Marcus> What I am suspicious about is the arrow from Mach 4.0 to
Marcus> the Hurd 0.2 release.  I don't think that there was a lot
Marcus> of code flow in this direction, but on the other hand, I
Marcus> don't really know.

I think that you are right to be suspicious.

Marcus> Thanks for pointing this out. I hope there will be a Hurd
Marcus> 0.3 soon on this chart :) Marcus

:)


ObGrumble:
The author of this chart makes the typical mistake of
  confusing the kernels with operating systems.  We see no mention
  of GNU, sadly.  IIRC, GNU-0.0 was released at the same time as
  the first HURD release (0.0).  I tried to find the message from
  Thomas Bushnell announcing 0.0 (it must have been between march
  and september 1996), but I think I mislaid it. Argh!  If someone
  has a copy, please forward me a copy, I'd like it for nostalgic
  reasons. 

Cheers, 

Paul.




-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
 http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/~paule

Re: Implementing binary compatibility with Linux, *BSD, ...

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Farid Hajji wrote:
> 
> [Sorry to mail to both lists, but the topic _is_ relevant in both cases.
>  BTW, could we _please_ reunify both lists?]

Actually, I think this is more appropriate to bug-hurd anyway (which is
the
actual development list).

> Abstract: The following mail contains a proposal, discussion and technical
>   description on implementing binary compatibility of the Hurd to
>   binaries compiled for Linux-, *BSD- or other OS, without the need
>   to recompile those binaries from scratch. With binary compat.,
>   the Hurd servers can be installed in an existing OS distribution
>   as a simple package and would be ready-to-run.

Wow! You have given this a lot of thought, and this is really a good
proposal.
However, a smaller problem can be solved a lot easier, and this might be
a good
first step towards your more complete solution.

The Hurd GLibC has a special property: It has almost the same interface
as the Linux GLibC,
because it comes from the same source tree. I say almost, because there
are mainly two things
standing in the way of full compatibility:

1. The Hurd uses stdio, while Linux uses libio.
2. The Hurd does not have pthreads.

Those are the two main items I know. The idea was to implement pthreads
for the Hurd,
and then make both changes in a bunch. This will give us ABI
compatibility with the
Linux glibc. So, Linux binaries which don't use syscalls direclty, but
only exported
interfaces in glibc and other user libraries will work on the Hurd
without any emulation,
because we use the same object format, the same ABIs etc.

Only for direct use of syscalls we would need the syscall trap and
emulation you explain
in your proposal.

Of course, this only is for recent linux binaries, and not for BSD or
older stuff.
But I think it is already tremendous useful, and comparatively easy to
achieve,
because you don't need to emulate any syscalls.

Thanks,
Marcus

RE: Release date for hurd?

[Latham, Steve]

flame you

-Original Message-
From: David DeTinne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 12:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Release date for hurd?


Has anyone else seen this on slashdot?
 
It is a visual map of the history of the unix variants.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.html
 
 
On this map it looks like the hurd went away before lites?
 
Please don't flame me as I am only pointing out the site.
 
David DeTinne 


 
If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the
delivery of this message to the addressee, please note that this message may
contain ITT Privileged/Proprietary Information.  In such a case, you may not
copy or deliver this message to anyone.  You should destroy this message and
kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Information contained in this
message that does not relate to the business of ITT is neither endorsed by
nor attributable to ITT. 
 

Re: Release date for hurd?

[Marcus Brinkmann]

> David DeTinne wrote:
> 
> Has anyone else seen this on slashdot?
> 
> It is a visual map of the history of the unix variants.
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.html

That's really a nice chart!
 
> On this map it looks like the hurd went away before lites?

Yes, the date is correct as far as beginning of development is
concerned.
The first version of the Hurd, 0.1, was released much later and is shown
in the chart to.

What I am suspicious about is the arrow from Mach 4.0 to the Hurd 0.2
release.
I don't think that there was a lot of code flow in this direction, but
on the
other hand, I don't really know.

Thanks for pointing this out. I hope there will be a Hurd 0.3 soon on
this chart :)
Marcus