hurd does NOT need /hurd
First, some problems about /hurd that have come up on irc just now.
1) is /hurd versioned? Or is /hurd a 'special' filesystem(kinda like devfs
for linux), that lists the available services that have been compiled into
2) Could the ideas that the items placed in /hurd be useful outside of hurd?
Ie, could other operating systems make use of translators?
Now, for some other analogies, to existing practices, showing that /hurd is
not needed, *at all*.
In the current FHS, there is documentation about /lib/modules. Currently,
this describes Linux drivers. However, I see no reason it can't be used for
hurd as well(hurd purists will say that because Linux came up with it, it
*CAN'T* be good, so they don't want to use it).
However, unlike /hurd, /lib/modules does not contain any reference to the
kernel that is being run. I'd much rather have hurd use /lib/modules, instead
of tainting file system layouts with special /linux, /hurd, /freebsd crap.
I also wonder if the idea of filesystem translation could be useful outside of
hurd. In fact, there already is use, in Linux. Think user-space nfs(a
kernel-based nfs module talking to a user-space nfs daemon). cfs works this
way, as does probably sfs.
Also, autofs is a simple form of this as well.
It's just that linux doesn't have a well-defined way of having translators run
as normal users(most run as root, or something).
So, why then do we really need /hurd? What are the *real* reasons?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com