Re: Linux binaries on HURD
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> Programs, certainly. Source compatibility is *definitely* a goal. For
> programs. Not for drivers - the linux driver model is utterly different
> (and utterly inferior) to the HURD one. Perhaps the key difference is
> that, as far as Mach allows, HURD drivers are userland, not kernel-side.
But it's too hard to rewrite all drivers. HURD without sufficient amount of
drivers is life-unable in modern world. May be just source code of Linux
modules has to be simple to convert to HURD driver model?
> > be distinguished from Linux by any Linux packages, programs or modules!
> And what would we then gain?
You gain safest migration from Linux to HURD or even more:
"we say Linux and think HURD, we say HURD and think Linux". Otherwise HURD
and Linux will be animals, will eat commercial and amateur field each
other. Do you gain that?!!
> Source compatibility is important. And we aim for this, since we're going
> to be running a version of glibc on HURD - so the glibc interface will be
> maintained. Binary compatibility is an interesting goal, but not a very
> important one, IMHO.
Just use the same ELF format and internal structure as Linux does. Or some
like iBCS2. Binary compatibility is quite important, you see I have no time
to recompile mozilla from Linux to HURD. I'd like to cp binary netscape from
Linux to HURD, chmod, run & enjoy!
> Depending how you measure success..
Success is total union of UNIX world against Windows NT. Most unicies MUST
BE compatible on the level NT compatible with NT. Do you want HURD to be much
more powerful than Linux? Fine idea, but Linux has to be a SUBSET of HURD!