Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA2281 ; Mon, 01 Mar 93 10:52:11 EST
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!gmd.de!fanoe!veit
From: veit@fanoe.gmd.de (Holger Veit)
Subject: Re: 386BSD Posix Compliance
Message-ID: <1993Feb26.092011.17475@gmd.de>
Sender: veit@fanoe (Holger Veit)
Nntp-Posting-Host: fanoe
Organization: GMD - German National Research Center for Computer Science
References: <1me016$4j8@agate.berkeley.edu> <C2z38u.3BA@panix.com> <1993Feb25.080612.16553@gmd.de> <C308pG.2v6@sugar.neosoft.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 09:20:11 GMT
Lines: 57
In article <C308pG.2v6@sugar.neosoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <1993Feb25.080612.16553@gmd.de> veit@fanoe.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Holger Veit) writes:
[...]
|> There are people using the existing BSD kernel interfaces in 386BSD and BSDI
|> to design and implement new and novel software components that can't be written
|> to the POSIX interface. This is the second widely available reasonably modern
|> operating system that allows this sort of work, and maintaining those
|> interfaces so this work can proceed is just as desirable as maintaining the
|> POSIX application interface. Probably more so, since most of the available
|> software *isn't* written to the POSIX variant of *IX.
|>
|> > The second aspect is the kernel domain. A typical user does not normally write
|> > kernel code;
|>
|> But, with 386BSD, they can. This is probably the most powerful part of the
|> system as a research base.
You should explain what your "new and novel software components" you have in mind are.
If they are applications (and X11 or other GUI's *are* simply applications), they may
or may not be written to POSIX. But if you write kernel support for that, you automatically
become incompatible to the rest of the world in any way.
If it is solely kernel stuff you want to develop, you are in the same domain as the
Jolitzes et al. You are free to invent your own 386bsd.peter, and try to "sell" it.
But be aware: this is as incompatible an approach as the Jolitz plans, and
noone can determine todate which is the best way to go. But then, just bashing at
ideas just because you don't understand them, or for absolutely conservative reasons,
or for personal reasons or , is not nice style.
|> > Bill's mentioned "novel research" focuses on changes in the kernel interfaces,
|> > for instance device drivers, memory management, file systems, networking. This
|> > might be an extreme change for kernel hackers, and 386bsd surely becomes
|> > incompatible to e.g. NET/2 on the *source level*; but this *is* acceptable
|>
|> No, it's not. Not yet. Not until 386BSD is stable without lots of patches.
|>
|> If 0.2 is significantly incompatible with 0.1 at the kernel level, without
|> some compelling breakthrough to offset this cost, then I can guarantee that
|> there *will* be a fork with lots of people sticking to 386BSD-classic and
|> probably creating a new baseline distribution.
I wouldn't consider this a bad idea. Stick with things you understand, and don't
force people with different opinions to adopt yours, just because you are not
willing to adapt to reality and progress. Every support is helpful, but if you don't
like the implicit rules of the game, play another game, and do not disturb ours.
Holger
|> --
|> Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
--
Dr. Holger Veit | INTERNET: Holger.Veit@gmd.de
| | / GMD-SET German National Research | Phone: (+49) 2241 14 2448
|__| / Center for Computer Science | Fax: (+49) 2241 14 2342
| | / P.O. Box 13 16 | Three lines Signature space
| |/ Schloss Birlinghoven | available for rent. Nearly
DW-5205 St. Augustin, Germany | unused, good conditions