Re: Re: Debian BSD.. cool idea
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 09:46:15PM -0600, Dan Potter wrote:
> I don't think this would address the issue properly either. For one thing,
> there are some pieces to the system that simply have to be FreeBSD
> binaries, like the kld* utils.
You're right. Though that's a fairly constrained case and I
think it would be fine to have a kernel-specific set of kld*s.
And, I guess that means that linux apps which use /proc/ aren't
going to work.
Debian Linux already has an analogous situation for various
> Also, things like 'jail' don't even exist in Linux (wow jail is cool!
> =).
You mean this thing?
$ apt-cache search jail
jail - Just Another ICMP Logger
$
> Things like 'ps' and 'top' use BSD-specific methods since the POSIX
> committee in all their wisdom decided against specifying a way to
> introspect the system. So you'd need these too.
It's not so pleasant if independent versions of such things have to be
resupplied for every kernel. Do they?
> That brings back the kernel dependencies. And unfortunately, basic
> system programs like init and killall tend to need to look at the
> process listing one way or another, among other kernely things.
Might be worth writing a /proc/ emulator then...
But yeah, that's work.
> I don't really think you can get away from it that way. There is one
> thing in Dan's essay I agree with totally, and that's that a smart
> way to deal with the issues might be to do work on FreeBSD to reduce
> kernel dependencies.
The nice thing about standards is that there's so many of them, eh?
[Which is to say: this sounds like the problem is lack of adherence
to any standard rather than the lack of development.]
--
Raul
Reply to: