Re: Debian/GNU Freebsd
> On another thought why not run both? Yes that is right Hurd
> is actually
> Hurd/Mach because it uses the Mach microkernel and Hurd is
> all the unix like
> daemons on top.
Not exactly. The hurd implements some C-library level compatibility stuff
so we can compile unix-y stuff on the hurd, but it's architecture is quite
different from the Linux kernel. Think of it as "Mach/Hurd" = "Linux
Kernel" and all of he daemons and other stuff are pretty similar, except
where they have to be specially implemented for the hurd (e.g., PPP).
> We could make that Hurd/Linux by striping
> Linux down to a bare
> microkernel.
>
There is a project called L4 Linux which actually created a Linux server to
sit on top of the L4 microkernel. I think this could be used as the basis
for a Linux server on the Mach microkernel.
The really cool thing about this is that you can run these servers
independently. For example, I could have a Linux, Hurd, and FreeBSD server
running on top of my Mach microkernel. Then, we *should* be able to run
straight binaries for each of these kernels on top of the Mach+server
system.
> Think of the choice Debian GNU/Linux, GNU/FreeBSD,
> GNU/NetBSD, GNU/Hurd/Mach
> GNU/Hurd/Linux, GNU/Hurd/FreeBSD, GNU/Hurd/NetBSD. And if we
> can get them all
> to have similar system calls and run elf then the binaries
> will be compaitable
> for systems with the same chip. You could install Debian
> GNU/Linux and then
> change your mind and do apt-get install hurd-mach or apt-get
> install freebsd
> and Debian will changes its kernel in front of your eyes.
> (apt-get install
> win32 ????)
Right -- see my previous posting requesting that they implement a Lites-BSD
server instead, since it was designed to run on the Mach microkernel. We
could then have literally RIGHT NOW a distribution of Hurd and BSD running
on the Mach microkernel.
Talk about technical superiority!
-Brent
Reply to: