[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux binaries on HURD

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Grigorio V. Moshkin wrote:

> 			Hello!
> 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?

Drivers, in essence are normally simple beasts.  (That was a gross
generalisation.  Shoot me!).

In any case, that question would be better answered by the general HURD
chaps (a couple of them sometimes listen on this list - otherwise, there's
a bug-hurd list somewhere...).

> > 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!

The most difficult aspect of binary compatibility, I would imagine, is
making sure that all your libraries have exactly the same symbol table
structure as the Linux equivalents... but I'm not sure.

Anyway, you want to cp your netscape binary to HURD?  I certainly don't.
I'd far rather run express or mnemonic, or at least mozilla.  And these,
being source-distributed projects will compile on HURD...

> > 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!

Well.  It seems we have different goals, then.

I simply want HURD to be a technically superb OS I can enjoy using, and
use productively, and recommend to my clients, perhaps.  But I don't
particularly agree that UNIX compatibility is a primary goal.  Nice,
certainly, but if I can't run Solaris binaries on my HURD machine, that's
not going to change my life.

Which is not to say that I don't understand your goal and sympathise with
it.  I'd love to see NT felled.  But that's not the reason I work with
Linux and the HURD.

After all, I regularly use 4 computers, and only one is i386.  And it's
the one I enjoy using least ;-)

|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     |                               |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

Reply to: