[OT] HURD vs Linux/HURD
John Bradford
> >> Larry they'd get a lot further.
> > Linux isn't the only free operating system in existance, and although BK
> > seems to suit the requirements of a lot of Linux developers, that
> > doesn't mean that it meets the requirements of other free OS
> > development teams.
> > I strongly suspect that we'll see a free SCM developed after a few more
> > years of HURD development, for example.
> > Doesn't mean we'll switch to it, though, we haven't switched to my bug
> > database, have we? :-).
> > John.
>
> Given that large chunks of HURD come from Linux, please refer to it as
> Linux/HURD.
What HURD code comes from Linux? GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but
not HURD as far as I know.
John.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Christoph Hellwig
> What HURD code comes from Linux? GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but
> not HURD as far as I know.
the networking code at least (aka pfinet)
Christian Reichert
> > Given that large chunks of HURD come from Linux, please refer to it as
> > Linux/HURD.
>
> What HURD code comes from Linux? GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but
> not HURD as far as I know.
Neither to my knowledge -
GNU/HURD uses GNU/MACH as the microkernel (and GNU/MACH uses Linux 2.0
drivers), but they are actually thinking of switching to another MACH
implementation once it's stable.
Cheers,
Chris
Gaël Le Mignot
19 Jul 2003 17:02:41 +0200, you wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 17:03, John Bradford wrote:
>> > Given that large chunks of HURD come from Linux, please refer to it as
>> > Linux/HURD.
>>
>> What HURD code comes from Linux? GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but
>> not HURD as far as I know.
> Neither to my knowledge -
> GNU/HURD uses GNU/MACH as the microkernel (and GNU/MACH uses Linux 2.0
> drivers), but they are actually thinking of switching to another MACH
> implementation once it's stable.
To be more exact:
- GNU/Hurd, the whole systems, is actually GNU tools (libc, linker,
...) on top of the GNU Hurd (set of servers) and the GNU Mach
microkernel.
- GNU Mach 1.x uses drivers from Linux 2.0.36 (IIRC)
- GNU Mach 2.0 (actually 1.9, as a beta version), uses the OSKit
framework, and such drivers from Linux 2.2.12 (but nearly any driver
for Linux 2.2 can be easily ported) or FreeBSD (I don't remember
which version, we actually use more Linux drivers).
- In the future, we'll probably use the L4 microkernel. On top of L4,
we'll have to implement user space drivers. That'ld probably take
time, so we may reuse Linux drivers with glue code as a temporary
solution.
- pfinet (our TCP/IP server) comes from Linux 2.0 IP stack, but we
need a rewrite for that (first because Linux 2.0 stack's is not the
best in the world ;) and then because kernel-space code runned in
user-space with glue code isn't either fast nor flexible).
I'm not aware of other use of Linux code inside the Hurd project, or
even inside the GNU project, but there may be.
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - kil...@nerim.net - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Larry McVoy
> ...) on top of the GNU Hurd (set of servers) and the GNU Mach
> microkernel.
Mach wasn't written by GNU, it's a BSD based kernel pried apart into chunks
by people at CMU.
> - GNU Mach 1.x uses drivers from Linux 2.0.36 (IIRC)
>
> - GNU Mach 2.0 (actually 1.9, as a beta version), uses the OSKit
> framework, and such drivers from Linux 2.2.12
>
> - pfinet (our TCP/IP server) comes from Linux 2.0 IP stack
>
> I'm not aware of other use of Linux code inside the Hurd project, or
> even inside the GNU project, but there may be.
Drivers and networking account for about 50% of the total lines of code.
The bulk of the work in any operating system is typically drivers. The
generic part of Linux (non-driver, non-file system) is tiny compared to
the rest.
If the Hurd gets its drivers from Linux then it should rightfully be called
Linux/HURD (or Linux/HURD/GNU).
work /tmp/linux-2.5$ bk -rnet cat | wc -l
326411
work /tmp/linux-2.5$ bk -rdrivers cat | wc -l
2605850
work /tmp/linux-2.5$ bk -r cat | wc -l
6618524
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Gaėl Le Mignot
Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:23:11 -0700, you wrote:
>> - GNU/Hurd, the whole systems, is actually GNU tools (libc, linker,
>> ...) on top of the GNU Hurd (set of servers) and the GNU Mach
>> microkernel.
> Mach wasn't written by GNU, it's a BSD based kernel
Totally wrong. You're confusing the Mach operating system (with UX, a
BSD-server on top of the Mach micro-kernel) and the Mach micro-kernel
itself.
> pried apart into chunks by people at CMU.
GNU Mach is a modified version of OSF Mach which is modified version
of CMU Mach.
> Drivers and networking account for about 50% of the total lines of code.
> The bulk of the work in any operating system is typically drivers. The
> generic part of Linux (non-driver, non-file system) is tiny compared to
> the rest.
Maybe for you, an OS is drivers. For me, it's a design, an
architecture, a philosophy, and a way to defend a value that is not
important for you: Freedom.
> If the Hurd gets its drivers from Linux then it should rightfully be called
> Linux/HURD (or Linux/HURD/GNU).
Stop trolling, thank you.
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - kil...@nerim.net - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Larry McVoy
> Hello Larry!
>
> Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:23:11 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >> - GNU/Hurd, the whole systems, is actually GNU tools (libc, linker,
> >> ...) on top of the GNU Hurd (set of servers) and the GNU Mach
> >> microkernel.
>
> > Mach wasn't written by GNU, it's a BSD based kernel
>
> Totally wrong. You're confusing the Mach operating system (with UX, a
> BSD-server on top of the Mach micro-kernel) and the Mach micro-kernel
> itself.
The microkernel part of any reasonable microkernel is tiny. The QNX
microkernel used to fit in a 4K instruction cache. To say that the
microkernel is the operating system is ludicrous, that's like say
this series of 5 instructions which happen to get run a lot are the
whole program.
Without the BSD part, you had no operating system, no devices, no nothing.
What you had was a mechanism which can context switch, something that
every first year OS student has written (or should have).
I stand behind the statement and I've read all the Mach papers, all
the Mach code, and lectured on it at little places like Stanford
University. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
> > pried apart into chunks by people at CMU.
>
> GNU Mach is a modified version of OSF Mach which is modified version
> of CMU Mach.
Whatever. That's your label. Personally, I despise this business of
taking someone else's code and renaming it. It's not GNU code, the
GNU people didn't write it.
> > Drivers and networking account for about 50% of the total lines of code.
> > The bulk of the work in any operating system is typically drivers. The
> > generic part of Linux (non-driver, non-file system) is tiny compared to
> > the rest.
>
> Maybe for you, an OS is drivers. For me, it's a design, an
> architecture, a philosophy, and a way to defend a value that is not
> important for you: Freedom.
I've got a shelf of OS texts, probably close to 90% of all the OS texts
written and I don't recall any of them teaching that you should take other
people's code, rename it, and claim it as your own in the name of freedom.
> > If the Hurd gets its drivers from Linux then it should rightfully be called
> > Linux/HURD (or Linux/HURD/GNU).
>
> Stop trolling, thank you.
Hey, you want to spout nonsense then be prepared to be challenged. I'm
just responding to something that is obviously incorrect, that's not
trolling, that's setting the record straight. I think it was Dave Miller
who told me the other night that an unchallenged incorrect statement
becomes true by default and I agree.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Christoph Hellwig
> The microkernel part of any reasonable microkernel is tiny.
And who says Mach is a reasonable microkernel :)
Larry McVoy
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:12:49AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > The microkernel part of any reasonable microkernel is tiny.
>
> And who says Mach is a reasonable microkernel :)
Yup, more like a maxikernel :)
That was my reaction on reading the code years ago and it hasn't changed.
I used to know one of the main guys who did the QNX microkernel (Dan
Hildebrandt, RIP 1998) and he talked about how a real microkernel was
never touched by more than 3 people and each of them spent as much
time removing stuff as adding it.
Mach is kinda on the bloated side, I always questioned the wisdom of
the GNU HURD being based on Mach, seemed like a bad call. But then,
unless you have an extremely well controlled dev team, any micro kernel
is a bad call, it's going to bloat out.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Gaėl Le Mignot
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 07:46:54PM +0200, Ga?l Le Mignot wrote:
>> Hello Larry!
>>
>> Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:23:11 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> >> - GNU/Hurd, the whole systems, is actually GNU tools (libc, linker,
>> >> ...) on top of the GNU Hurd (set of servers) and the GNU Mach
>> >> microkernel.
>>
>> > Mach wasn't written by GNU, it's a BSD based kernel
>>
>> Totally wrong. You're confusing the Mach operating system (with UX, a
>> BSD-server on top of the Mach micro-kernel) and the Mach micro-kernel
>> itself.
> The microkernel part of any reasonable microkernel is tiny. The QNX
> microkernel used to fit in a 4K instruction cache. To say that the
> microkernel is the operating system is ludicrous, that's like say
> this series of 5 instructions which happen to get run a lot are the
> whole program.
You completly missed the point.
The part use by the GNU Hurd is only the Mach microkernel, not the
Mach operating system in a whole.
>> > pried apart into chunks by people at CMU.
>>
>> GNU Mach is a modified version of OSF Mach which is modified version
>> of CMU Mach.
> Whatever. That's your label. Personally, I despise this business of
> taking someone else's code and renaming it. It's not GNU code, the
> GNU people didn't write it.
We did it with the agreement of the original authors, and then we
changed it. Should we call our modified version with the same name
than the original one ? That would be bad, indeed !
>> Maybe for you, an OS is drivers. For me, it's a design, an
>> architecture, a philosophy, and a way to defend a value that is not
>> important for you: Freedom.
> I've got a shelf of OS texts, probably close to 90% of all the OS texts
> written and I don't recall any of them teaching that you should take other
> people's code, rename it, and claim it as your own in the name of freedom.
Stop lying. No one at the GNU project ever claimed a code to be his if
he didn't write it. Just look in any header file, and you'll se the
copyright entries intact. And we always say everywhere that GNU Mach
is a fork of OSF Mach.
>> > If the Hurd gets its drivers from Linux then it should rightfully be called
>> > Linux/HURD (or Linux/HURD/GNU).
>>
>> Stop trolling, thank you.
> Hey, you want to spout nonsense then be prepared to be challenged. I'm
> just responding to something that is obviously incorrect, that's not
> trolling, that's setting the record straight.
You're just writing a lot of incorrect statements, insulting people
(yes, you're calling the GNU project "thieves"), and not correcting
anything, since you just answer completly outside the subject.
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - kil...@nerim.net - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Gaėl Le Mignot
> the GNU HURD being based on Mach, seemed like a bad call. But then,
> unless you have an extremely well controlled dev team, any micro kernel
> is a bad call, it's going to bloat out.
If you were documenting yourself a bit instead of trolling, you'll
notice that's the GNU Hurd is not based on Mach. The GNU Hurd tries to
be micro-kernel independant, and will be ported to other microkernels,
like L4 Version 4.
And if you look a bit in the history, you'll notice that second
generation micro-kernels (like L4) were not available, or even
designed, at the time Mach was chosen as the first microkernel to make
the Hurd runs on.
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - kil...@nerim.net - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Valdis.K...@vt.edu
> Stop lying. No one at the GNU project ever claimed a code to be his if
> he didn't write it.
Oh. *NOW* I see. You don't actually *CLAIM* it's your code, you just
rename it in a misleading manner to create the impression.
"Yes, we asked the author to rename it GNU/Wombat, even though the GNU
project didn't actually do anything other than GNU/Rename it and then GNU/Borg it..."
I think you need to call the guys in Redmond, and ask if they could please
use the name 'GNU/Innovation"....
(And yes, I *used* to have a lot of respect for the GNU crew....)
Larry McVoy
> he didn't write it.
Nonsense. Go look at the set of code actually funded by the FSF and it
is tiny. The FSF tries to get everyone to sign over their copyright to
the FSF so they can "protect" the code and then they rename it to GNU
this that or the other thing. Start reading those copyrights you are
talking about, of the set of things described as GNU something, I would
guess than less than 1% of it was paid for by the FSF. The rest of it
is all stuff they slapped their name on after convincing people to sign
over copyrights.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Alan Cox
> guess than less than 1% of it was paid for by the FSF. The rest of it
> is all stuff they slapped their name on after convincing people to sign
> over copyrights.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!" -- Lao-tzu
Linus great achievement was making Linux happen, not writing it. The FSF
likewise.
Roman Zippel
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Stop lying. No one at the GNU project ever claimed a code to be his if
> > he didn't write it.
>
> Nonsense. Go look at the set of code actually funded by the FSF and it
> is tiny. The FSF tries to get everyone to sign over their copyright to
> the FSF so they can "protect" the code and then they rename it to GNU
> this that or the other thing.
Larry, you've proven enough now, that you don't understand the concept of
free software. You can stop now. Thanks.
bye, Roman
Theodore Ts'o
> > Linux/HURD.
>
> What HURD code comes from Linux? GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but
> not HURD as far as I know.
As far as I know, HURD is using ext2fs code. It should definitely be
called HURD/Linux. :-)
- Ted
Andre Hedrick
Did somebody mention IDE ?
Where?
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> >> >> If everyone spent the time replacing bitkeeper instead of beating
> >> up Larry they'd get a lot further.
> >> > Linux isn't the only free operating system in existance, and
> >> although BK seems to suit the requirements of a lot of Linux
> >> developers, that doesn't mean that it meets the requirements of
> >> other free OS
> >> > development teams.
> >> > I strongly suspect that we'll see a free SCM developed after a few
> >> more years of HURD development, for example.
> >> > Doesn't mean we'll switch to it, though, we haven't switched to my
> >> bug database, have we? :-).
> >> > John.
> >>
> >> Given that large chunks of HURD come from Linux, please refer to it as
> >> Linux/HURD.
> >
> > What HURD code comes from Linux? GNU/Mach uses code from Linux, but not
> > HURD as far as I know.
> >
>
> Hi John!
> Go take a look at their networking, and IDE code.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> This email was sent using SquirrelMail.
> "Webmail for nuts!"
> http://squirrelmail.org/
Andre Hedrick
Roman,
Could you correct "FREE" to "FREEDOM"?
Current trends point to FREE from CHOICE, and not FREEDOM to CHOOSE.
CannonBall! Splash!!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Charles E. Youse
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> As far as I know, HURD is using ext2fs code. It should definitely be
> called HURD/Linux. :-)
My understanding is that theirs is a re-implementation of ext2, not a
port.
C.
David Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
Heh,
> My understanding is that theirs is a re-implementation of ext2, not a
> port.
Who cares about the truth? It's GNU/Linux, Linux/HURD, GATES/Linux or
whatever...
*sigh*
These:
* bitkeeper (because it's a better system than anything open source) vs
cvs wars are tedious
* RMS can do what he wants to do
Why let the truth get in the way of, well, the truth?
- --
Who now has the strength to stand against
the armies of Isengard and Mordor?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/Gpvumk7m2JX6ki4RAi2/AJ41g1N6uagkzF2qjzYynH8W7PO4wACgkaOP
FhUeFnDJrzGWGRQRRBFx6+A=
=u+ir
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Bradford
> cvs wars are tedious
This discussion is nothing to do with Bit Keeper, (anymore). We are
discussing what parts of the Hurd and GNU Mach contain code derived
from Linux. That's actually quite interesting, and on-topic.
John.
Christoph Hellwig
> My understanding is that theirs is a re-implementation of ext2, not a
> port.
There's large part taken directly from Linux but the higher level
parts are of course totally different. Due to the GNU Obsfuc^H^H^H^H^HStyle
it's not easy to diff, though..
Brian McGroarty
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:23:19AM -0400, Charles E. Youse wrote:
> > My understanding is that theirs is a re-implementation of ext2, not a
> > port.
>
> There's large part taken directly from Linux but the higher level
> parts are of course totally different. Due to the GNU Obsfuc^H^H^H^H^HStyle
> it's not easy to diff, though..
So put both through the same code beautifier to normalize
formatting. Use ed to search/replace all non-C keywords with 'xxx' if
you think variables or function names are different well.
Horst von Brand
John Bradford <jo...@grabjohn.com> said:
[...]
> This discussion is nothing to do with Bit Keeper, (anymore).
That stuff is wildly off-topic.
> We are
> discussing what parts of the Hurd and GNU Mach contain code derived
> from Linux. That's actually quite interesting, and on-topic.
Why? Are you planing to take anything from Hurd? Or complain that they
(legally!) are taking GPLed code and use it elsewhere? In the fist case,
discussion about the _technical_ merit of the code to swipe is on-topic,
all else isn't. The second case is none of your business, (unless you wrote
the code and did not GPL it).
--
Horst von Brand vonb...@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
John Bradford
> > discussing what parts of the Hurd and GNU Mach contain code derived
> > from Linux. That's actually quite interesting, and on-topic.
>
> Why? Are you planing to take anything from Hurd? Or complain that they
> (legally!) are taking GPLed code and use it elsewhere? In the fist case,
> discussion about the _technical_ merit of the code to swipe is on-topic,
> all else isn't. The second case is none of your business, (unless you wrote
> the code and did not GPL it).
I'm certaily _not_ going to complain that code has been taken from
Linux - as you pointed out, that is perfectly legal.
The use of the Linux drivers in the Hurd is the closest thing[1] we've
got to a fork[2] of the Linux kernel.
So, yes, I am interested in seeing if they have done anything better
than we have, or have investigated possibilities we haven't.
John.
[1] I am _NOT_ saying that the Hurd is a fork of Linux, but that it's
about the only codebase which took Linux kernel code, and has let it
evolve separately from mainline over a number of years. OK, the Vax
port has lived outside of mainline for a number of years too, but
that's mainly architecture specific changes.
[2] OK, ELKS is a fork of the Linux kernel, but not specifically
targeted at 386+ boxes.
John.
Miles Bader
> > As far as I know, HURD is using ext2fs code. It should definitely be
> > called HURD/Linux. :-)
>
> My understanding is that theirs is a re-implementation of ext2, not a port.
I did the original port of ext2 to the hurd, and I definitely used the
linux code. Of course the lowest- and highest-level interfaces are all
different, so that code was replaced, but the most important `middle' part
that actually interprets the disk contents was largely the same code
(the separation is not actually so clean in practice, of course).
This is as it should be, I think...
-Miles
--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen