rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1430 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/anatomy_of_a_hurd_system.mdwn b/open_issues/anatomy_of_a_hurd_system.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 496d2a06..00000000
--- a/open_issues/anatomy_of_a_hurd_system.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1430 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 Free Software Foundation,
-Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!taglink open_issue_documentation]]
-
-A bunch of this should also be covered in other (introductionary) material,
-like Bushnell's Hurd paper.  All this should be unfied and streamlined.
-
-[[!toc]]
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-03-08
-
-    <foocraft> I've a question on what are the "units" in the hurd project, if
-      you were to divide them into units if they aren't, and what are the
-      dependency relations between those units(roughly, nothing too pedantic
-      for now)
-    <antrik> there is GNU Mach (the microkernel); there are the server
-      libraries in the Hurd package; there are the actual servers in the same;
-      and there is the POSIX implementation layer in glibc
-    <antrik> relations are a bit tricky
-    <antrik> Mach is the base layer which implements IPC and memory management
-    <foocraft> hmm I'll probably allocate time for dependency graph generation,
-      in the worst case
-    <antrik> on top of this, the Hurd servers, using the server libraries,
-      implement various aspects of the system functionality
-    <antrik> client programs use libc calls to use the servers
-    <antrik> (servers also use libc to communicate with other servers and/or
-      Mach though)
-    <foocraft> so every server depends solely on mach, and no other server?
-    <foocraft> s/mach/mach and/or libc/
-    <antrik> I think these things should be pretty clear one you are somewhat
-      familiar with the Hurd architecture... nothing really tricky there
-    <antrik> no
-    <antrik> servers often depend on other servers for certain functionality
-
-
-# Bootstrap
-
-## [[hurd_init]]
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-03-12
-
-    <dEhiN> when mach first starts up, does it have some basic i/o or fs
-      functionality built into it to start up the initial hurd translators?
-    <antrik> I/O is presently completely in Mach
-    <antrik> filesystems are in userspace
-    <antrik> the root filesystem and exec server are loaded by grub
-    <dEhiN> o I see
-    <dEhiN> so in order to start hurd, you would have to start mach and
-      simultaneously start the root filesystem and exec server?
-    <antrik> not exactly
-    <antrik> GRUB loads all three, and then starts Mach. Mach in turn starts
-      the servers according to the multiboot information passed from GRUB
-    <dEhiN> ok, so does GRUB load them into ram?
-    <dEhiN> I'm trying to figure out in my mind how hurd is initially started
-      up from a low-level pov
-    <antrik> yes, as I said, GRUB loads them
-    <dEhiN> ok, thanks antrik...I'm new to the idea of microkernels, but a
-      veteran of monolithic kernels
-    <dEhiN> although I just learned that windows nt is a hybrid kernel which I
-      never knew!
-    <rm> note there's a /hurd/ext2fs.static
-    <rm> I belive that's what is used initially... right?
-    <antrik> yes
-    <antrik> loading the shared libraries in addition to the actual server
-      would be unweildy
-    <antrik> so the root FS server is linked statically instead
-    <dEhiN> what does the root FS server do?
-    <antrik> well, it serves the root FS ;-)
-    <antrik> it also does some bootstrapping work during startup, to bring the
-      rest of the system up
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-01-03
-
-    <teythoon> hmpf, the hurd bootstrapping process is complicated and fragile,
-      maybe to the point that it is to be considered broken
-    <teythoon> aiui the hurd uses the filesystem for service lookup
-    <teythoon> older mach documentation suggests that there once existed a name
-      server instead for this purpose
-    <teythoon> the hurd approach is elegant and plan9ish
-    <teythoon> the problem is in the early bootstrapping
-    <teythoon> what if the root filesystem is r/o and there is no /servers or
-      /servers/exec ?
-    <teythoon> e. g. rm /servers/exec && reboot -> the rootfs dies early in the
-      hurd server bootstrap :/
-    <braunr> well yes
-    <braunr> it's normal to have such constraints
-    <teythoon> uh no
-    <braunr> at the same time, the boot protocol must be improved, if only to
-      support userspace disk drivers
-    <teythoon> totally unacceptable
-    <braunr> why not ?
-    <teythoon> b/c my box just died and lost it's exec node
-    <braunr> so ?
-    <braunr> loosing the exec node is unacceptable
-    <youpi> well, linux dies too if you don't have /dev populated at least a
-      bit
-    <braunr> not being able to boot without the "exec" service is pretty normal
-    <braunr> the hurd turns the vfs into a service directory
-    <teythoon> the exec service is there, only the lookup mechanism is broken
-    <braunr> replacing the name server you mentioned earlier
-    <teythoon> yes
-    <braunr> if you don't have services, you don't have them
-    <braunr> i don't see the problem
-    <braunr> the problem is the lookup mechanism getting broken
-    <teythoon> ... that easily
-    <braunr> imagine a boot protocol based on a ramfs filled from a cpio
-    <teythoon> i do actually ;)
-    <braunr> there would be no reason at all the lookup mechanism would break
-    <teythoon> yes
-    <teythoon> but the current situation is not acceptable
-    <braunr> i agree
-    <teythoon> ^^
-    <braunr> ext2fs is too unreliable for that
-    <braunr> but using the VFS as a directory is more than acceptable
-    <braunr> it's probably the main hurd feature
-    <teythoon> yes
-    <braunr> i see it rather as a circular dependency problem
-    <braunr> and if you have good ideas, i'm all ear for propel ... :>
-    <braunr> antrik already talked about some of them for the bootstrap
-      protocol
-    <braunr> we should sum them up somewhere if not done already
-    <teythoon> i've been pondering how to install a tmpfs translator as root
-      translator
-    <teythoon> braunr: we could create a special translator for /servers
-    <braunr> maybe
-    <teythoon> very much like fakeroot, it just proxies messages to a real
-      translator
-    <teythoon> but if operations like settrans fail, we handle them
-      transparently, like an overlay
-    <braunr> i consider /servers to be very close to /dev
-    <teythoon> yes
-    <braunr> so something like devfs seems obvious yes
-    <braunr> i don't even think there needs to be an overlay
-    <teythoon> y not ?
-    <braunr> why does /servers need real nodes ?
-    <teythoon> for persistence
-    <braunr> what for ?
-    <teythoon> e.g. crash server selection
-    <braunr> hm ok
-    <teythoon> network configuration
-    <braunr> i personally wouldn't make that persistent
-    <braunr> it can be configured in files and installed at boot time
-    <teythoon> me neither, but that's how it's currently done
-    <braunr> are you planning to actually work on that soon ?
-    <teythoon> if we need no persistence, we can just use tmpfs
-    <braunr> it wouldn't be a mere tmpfs
-    <teythoon> it could
-    <braunr> it's a tmpfs that performs automatic discovery and registration of
-      system services
-    <teythoon> with some special wrapper that preserves e.g. /servers/exec
-    <teythoon> oh
-    <braunr> so rather, devtmpfs
-    <teythoon> it is o_O :p
-    <braunr> ?
-    <braunr> what is what ?
-    <teythoon> well, it could be a tmpfs and some utility creating the nodes
-    <braunr> whether the node management is merged in or separate doesn't
-      matter that much i guess
-    <braunr> i'd personally imagine it merged, and tmpfs available as a
-      library, so that stuff like sysfs or netstatfs can easily be written
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-12
-
-    <teythoon> braunr: i fixed all fsys-related receiver lookups in libdiskfs
-      and surely enough the bootstrap hangs with no indication whats wrong
-    <braunr> teythoon: use mach_print :/
-    <teythoon> braunr: the hurd bootstrap is both fragile and hard to tweak in
-      interesting ways :/
-    <braunr> teythoon: i agree with that
-    <braunr> teythoon: maybe this will help :
-      http://wiki.hurdfr.org/upload/graphviz/dot9b65733655309d059dca236f940ef37a.png
-    <braunr> although i guess you probably already know that
-    <teythoon> heh, unicode for the win >,<
-    <braunr> :/
-
-
-# Source Code Documentation
-
-Provide a cross-linked sources documentation, including generated files, like
-RPC stubs.
-
-  * <http://www.gnu.org/software/global/>
-
-
-# [[Hurd_101]]
-
-
-# [[hurd/IO_path]]
-
-Need more stuff like that.
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-10-18
-
-    <frhodes> what happens @ boot. and which translators are started in what
-      order?
-    <antrik> short version: grub loads mach, ext2, and ld.so/exec; mach starts
-      ext2; ext2 starts exec; ext2 execs a few other servers; ext2 execs
-      init. from there on, it's just standard UNIX stuff
-
-
-# IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2011-11-02
-
-    <sekon_> is __dir_lookup a RPC ??
-    <sekon_> where can i find the source of __dir_lookup ??
-    <sekon_> grepping most gives out rvalue assignments 
-    <sekon_> -assignments 
-    <sekon_> but in hurs/fs.h it is used as a function ??
-    <pinotree> it should be the mig-generated function for that rpc
-    <sekon_> how do i know how its implemented ??
-    <sekon_> is there any way to delve deeprer into mig-generated functions 
-    <tschwinge> sekon_: The MIG-generated stuff will either be found in the
-      package's build directory (if it's building it for themselves), or in the
-      glibc build directory (libhurduser, libmachuser; which are all the
-      available user RPC stubs).
-    <tschwinge> sekon_: The implementation can be found in the various Hurd
-      servers/libraries.
-    <tschwinge> sekon_: For example, [hurd]/libdiskfs/dir-lookup.c.
-    <tschwinge> sekon_: What MIG does is provide a function call interface for
-      these ``functions'', and the Mach microkernel then dispatches the
-      invocation to the corresponding server, for example a /hurd/ext2fs file
-      system (via libdiskfs).
-    <tschwinge> sekon_: This may help a bit:
-      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/hurd_hacking_guide.html
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-01-08
-
-    <abique> can you tell me how is done in hurd:  "ls | grep x" ?
-    <abique> in bash
-    <youpi> ls's standard output is a port to the pflocal server, and grep x's
-      standard input is a port to the pflocal server
-    <youpi> the connexion between both ports inside the pflocal server being
-      done by bash when it calls pipe()
-    <abique> youpi, so STDOUT_FILENO, STDIN_FILENO, STDERR_FILENO still exists
-      ?
-    <youpi> sure, hurd is compatible with posix
-    <abique> so bash 1) creates T1 (ls) and T2 (grep), then create a pipe at
-      the pflocal server, then connects both ends to T1 and T2, then start(T1),
-      start(T2) ?
-    <youpi> not exactly
-    <youpi> it's like on usual unix, bash creates the pipe before creating the
-      tasks
-    <youpi> then forks to create both of them, handling them each side of the
-      pipe
-    <abique> ok I see
-    <youpi> s/handling/handing/
-    <abique> but when you do pipe() on linux, it creates a kernel object, this
-      time it's 2 port on the pflocal ?
-    <youpi> yes
-    <abique> how are spawned tasks ?
-    <abique> with fork() ?
-    <youpi> yes
-    <youpi> which is just task_create() and duplicating the ports into the new
-      task
-    <abique> ok
-    <abique> so it's easy to rewrite fork() with a good control of duplicated
-      fd
-    <abique> about threading, mutexes, conditions, etc.. are kernel objects or
-      just userland objects ?
-    <youpi> just ports
-    <youpi> (only threads are kernel objects)
-    <abique> so, about efficiency, are pipes and mutexes efficient ?
-    <youpi> depends what you call "efficient"
-    <youpi> it's less efficient than on linux, for sure
-    <youpi> but enough for a workable system
-    <abique> maybe hurd is the right place for a userland thread library like
-      pth or any fiber library
-    <abique> ?
-    <youpi> hurd already uses a userland thread library
-    <youpi> libcthreads
-    <abique> is it M:N ?
-    <youpi> libthreads, actually
-    <youpi> yes
-
-Actually, the Hurd has never used an M:N model. Both libthreads (cthreads) and libpthread use an 1:1 model.
-
-    <abique> nice
-    <abique> is the task scheduler in the kernel ?
-    <youpi> the kernel thread scheduler, yes, of course
-    <youpi> there has to be one
-    <abique> are the posix open()/readdir()/etc... the direct vfs or wraps an
-      hurd layer libvfs ?
-    <youpi> they wrap RPCs to the filesystem servers
-    <antrik> the Bushnell paper is probably the closest we have to a high-level
-      documentation of these concepts...
-    <antrik> the Hurd does not have a central VFS component at all. name
-      lookups are performed directly on the individual FS servers
-    <antrik> that's probably the most fundamental design feature of the Hurd
-    <antrik> (all filesystem operations actually, not only lookups)
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-01-09
-
-    <braunr> youpi: are you sure cthreads are M:N ? i'm almost sure they're 1:1
-    <braunr> and no modern OS is a right place for any thread userspace
-      library, as they wouldn't have support to run threads on different
-      processors (unless processors can be handled by userspace servers, but
-      still, it requires intimate cooperation between the threading library and
-      the kernel/userspace server in any case
-    <youpi> braunr: in libthreads, they are M:N
-    <youpi> you can run threads on different processors by using several kernel
-      threads, there's no problem in there, a lot of projects do this
-    <braunr> a pure userspace library can't use kernel threads
-    <braunr> at least pth was explacitely used on systems like bsd at a time
-      when they didn't have kernel threads exactly for that reason
-    <braunr> explicitely*
-    <braunr> and i'm actually quite surprised to learn that we have an M:N
-      threading model :/
-    <youpi> why do you say "can't" ?
-    <braunr> but i wanted to reply to abique and he's not around
-    <youpi> of course you need kernel threads
-    <youpi> but all you need is to bind them
-    <braunr> well, what i call a userspace threading library is a library that
-      completely implement threads without the support of the kernel
-    <braunr> or only limited support, like signals
-    <youpi> errr, you can't implement anything with absolutely no support of
-      the kernel
-    <braunr> pth used only SIGALRM iirc
-    <youpi> asking for more kernel threads to use more processors doesn't seem
-      much
-    <braunr> it's not
-    <braunr> but i'm refering to what abique said
-    <braunr> 01:32 < abique> maybe hurd is the right place for a userland
-      thread library like pth or any fiber library
-    <youpi> well, it's indeed more, because the glibc lets external libraries
-      provide their mutex
-    <youpi> while on linux, glibc doesn't
-    <braunr> i believe he meant removing thread support from the kernel :p
-    <youpi> ah
-    <braunr> and replying "nice" to an M:N threading model is also suspicious,
-      since experience seems to show 1:1 models are better
-    <youpi> "better" ????
-    <braunr> yes
-    <youpi> well
-    <youpi> I don't have any time to argue  about that
-    <youpi> because that'd be extremely long
-    <braunr> simpler, so far less bugs, and also less headache concerning posix
-      conformance
-    <youpi> but there's no absolute "better" here
-    <youpi> but less performant
-    <youpi> less flexible
-    <braunr> that's why i mention experience :)
-    <youpi> I mean experience too
-    <braunr> why less performant ?
-    <youpi> because you pay kernel transition
-    <youpi> because you don't know anything about the application threads
-    <youpi> etc.
-    <braunr> really ?
-    <youpi> yes
-    <braunr> i fail to see where the overhead is
-    <youpi> I'm not saying m:n is generally better than 1:1 either
-    <youpi> thread switch, thread creation, etc.
-    <braunr> creation is slower, i agree, but i'm not sure it's used frequently
-      enough to really matter
-    <youpi> it is sometimes used frequently enough
-    <youpi> and in those cases it would be a headache to avoid it
-    <braunr> ok
-    <braunr> i thought thread pools were used in those cases
-    <youpi> synchronized with kernel mutexes ?
-    <youpi> that's still slow
-    <braunr> it reduces to the thread switch overhead
-    <braunr> which, i agree is slightly slower
-    <braunr> ok, i's a bit less performant :)
-    <braunr> well don't futexes exist just for that too ?
-    <youpi> yes and no
-    <youpi> in that case they don't help
-    <youpi> because they do sleep
-    <youpi> they help only when the threads are living
-    <braunr> ok
-    <youpi> now as I said I don't have to talk much more, I have to leave :)
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-12-06
-
-    <braunr> spiderweb: have you read
-      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-paper.html ?
-    <spiderweb> I'll have a look.
-    <braunr> and also the beginning of
-      http://ftp.sceen.net/mach/mach_a_new_kernel_foundation_for_unix_development.pdf
-    <braunr> these two should provide a good look at the big picture the hurd
-      attemtps to achieve
-    <Tekk_> I can't help but wonder though, what advantages were really
-      achieved with early mach?
-    <Tekk_> weren't they just running a monolithic unix server like osx does?
-    <braunr> most mach-based systems were
-    <braunr> but thanks to that, they could provide advanced features over
-      other well established unix systems
-    <braunr> while also being compatible
-    <Tekk_> so basically it was just an ease of development thing
-    <braunr> well that's what mach aimed at being
-    <braunr> same for the hurd
-    <braunr> making things easy
-    <Tekk_> but as a side effect hurd actually delivers on the advantages of
-      microkernels aside from that, but the older systems wouldn't, correct?
-    <braunr> that's how there could be network file systems in very short time
-      and very scarce resources (i.e. developers working on it), while on other
-      systems it required a lot more to accomplish that
-    <braunr> no, it's not a side effect of the microkernel
-    <braunr> the hurd retains and extends the concept of flexibility introduced
-      by mach
-    <Tekk_> the improved stability, etc. isn't a side effect of being able to
-      restart generally thought of as system-critical processes?
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> you can't restart system critical processes on the hurd either
-    <braunr> that's one feature of minix, and they worked hard on it
-    <Tekk_> ah, okay. so that's currently just the domain of minix
-    <Tekk_> okay
-    <Tekk_> spiderweb: well, there's 1 advantage of minix for you :P
-    <braunr> the main idea of mach is to make it easy to extend unix
-    <braunr> without having hundreds of system calls
-
-[[/system_call]].
-
-    <braunr> the hurd keeps that and extends it by making many operations
-      unprivileged
-    <braunr> you don't need special code for kernel modules any more
-    <braunr> it's easy
-    <braunr> you don't need special code to handle suid bits and other ugly
-      similar hacks,
-    <braunr> it's easy
-    <braunr> you don't need fuse
-    <braunr> easy
-    <braunr> etc..
-
-
-# Service Directory
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-12-06
-
-    <spiderweb> what is the #1 feature that distinguished hurd from other
-      operating systems. the concept of translators. (will read more when I get
-      more time).
-    <braunr> yes, translators
-    <braunr> using the VFS as a service directory
-    <braunr> and the VFS permissions to control access to those services
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-05-23
-
-    <gnu_srs> Hi, is there any efficient way to control which backed
-      translators are called via RPC with a user space program?
-    <gnu_srs> Take for example io_stat: S_io_stat is defined in boot/boot.c,
-      pfinet/io-ops.c and pflocal/io.c
-    <gnu_srs> And the we have libdiskfs/io-stat.c:diskfs_S_io_stat,
-      libnetfs/io-stat.c:netfs_S_io_stat, libtreefs/s-io.c:treefs_S_io_stat,
-      libtrivfs/io-stat.c:trivfs_S_io_stat
-    <gnu_srs> How are they related?
-    <braunr> gnu_srs: it depends on the server (translator) managing the files
-      (nodes) you're accessing
-    <braunr> so use fsysopts to know the server, and see what this server uses
-    <gnu_srs> fsysopts /hurd/pfinet and fsysopts /hurd/pflocal gives the same
-      answer: ext2fs --writable --no-inherit-dir-group --store-type=typed
-      device:hd0s1
-    <braunr> of course
-    <braunr> the binaries are regular files
-    <braunr> see /servers/socket/1 and /servers/socket/2 instead
-    <braunr> which are the nodes representing the *service*
-    <braunr> again, the hurd uses the file system as a service directory
-    <braunr> this usage of the file system is at the core of the hurd design
-    <braunr> files are not mere files, they're service names
-    <braunr> it happens that, for most files, the service behind them is the
-      same as for regular files
-    <braunr> gnu_srs: this *must* be obvious for you to do any tricky work on
-      the hurd
-
-    <gnu_srs> Anyway, if I create a test program calling io_stat I assume
-      S_io_stat in pflocal is called.
-    <gnu_srs> How to make the program call S_io_stat in pfinet instead? 
-    <braunr> create a socket managed by pfinet
-    <braunr> i.e. an inet or inet6 socket
-    <braunr> you can't assume io_stat is serviced by pflocal
-    <braunr> only stats on unix sockets of pipes will be
-    <braunr> or*
-    <gnu_srs> thanks, what about the *_S_io_stat functions?
-    <braunr> what about them ?
-    <gnu_srs> How they fit into the picture, e.g. diskfs_io_stat?
-    <gnu_srs> *diskfs_S_io_stat
-    <braunr> gnu_srs: if you open a file managed by a server using libdiskfs,
-      e.g. ext2fs, that one will be called
-    <gnu_srs> Using the same user space call: io_stat, right?
-    <braunr> it's all userspace
-    <braunr> say rather, client-side
-    <braunr> the client calls the posix stat() function, which is implemented
-      by glibc, which converts it into a call to io_stat, and sends it to the
-      server managing the open file
-    <braunr> the io_stat can change depending on the server
-    <braunr> the remote io_stat implementation, i mean
-    <braunr> identify the server, and you will identify the actual
-      implementation
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-30
-
-    <hacklu> hi, what is the replacer of netname_check_in? 
-
-    <hacklu> I want to ask another question. in my opinion, the rpc is the
-      mach's way, and the translator is the hurd's way. so somebody want to
-      lookup a service, it should not need to ask the mach kernel know about
-      this query. the hurd will take the control. 
-    <hacklu> am I right?
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> that's nonsense
-    <braunr> service lookups has never been in mach
-    <braunr> first mach based systems used a service directory, whereas the
-      hurd uses the file system for that
-    <braunr> you still need mach to communicate with either of those
-    <hacklu> how to understand the term of service directory here?
-    <braunr> a server everyone knows
-    <braunr> which gives references to other servers
-    <braunr> usually, depending on the name
-    <braunr> e.g. name_lookup("net") -> port right to network server
-    <hacklu> is that people use netname_check_in to register service in the
-      past? now used libtrivfs?
-    <braunr> i don't know about netname_check_in
-    <braunr> old mach (not gnumach) documentation might mention this service
-      directory
-    <braunr> libtrivfs doesn't have much to do with that
-    <braunr> on the hurd, the equivalent is the file system
-    <hacklu> maybe that is outdate, I just found that exist old doc, and old
-      code which can't be build.
-    <braunr> every process knows /
-    <braunr> the file system is the service directory
-    <braunr> nodes refer to services
-    <hacklu> so the file system is the nameserver, any new service should
-      register in it before other can use
-    <braunr> and the file system is distributed, so looking up a service may
-      require several queries
-    <braunr> setting a translator is exactly that, registering a program to
-      service requests on a node
-    <braunr> the file system isn't one server though
-    <braunr> programs all know about /, but then, lookups are recursive
-    <braunr> e.g. if you have / and /home, and are looking for
-      /home/hacklu/.profile, you ask / which tells you about /home, and /home
-      will give you a right to /home/hacklu/.profile
-    <hacklu> even in the past, the mach don't provide name register service,
-      there must be an other server to provide this service?
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> what's nonsense in your sentence is comparing RPCs and translators
-    <braunr> translators are merely servers attached to the file system, using
-      RPCs to communicate with the rest of the system
-    <hacklu> I know yet, the two just one thing.
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> two things :p
-    <braunr> completely different and unrelated except for one using the other
-    <hacklu> ah, just one used aonther one.
-    <hacklu> is exist anyway to anounce service except settrans with file node?
-    <braunr> more or less
-    <braunr> tasks can have special ports
-    <braunr> that's how one task knows about / for example
-    <braunr> at task creation, a right to / is inserted in the new task
-    <hacklu> I think this is also a file node way.
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> if i'm right, auth is referenced the same way
-    <braunr> and there is no node for auth
-    <hacklu> how the user get the port of auth with node?
-    <braunr> it's given when a task is created
-    <hacklu> pre-set in the creation of one task?
-    <braunr> i'm unconfortable with "pre-set"
-    <braunr> inserted at creation time
-    <braunr> auth is started very early
-    <braunr> then tasks are given a reference to it
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-12-10
-
-    <spiderweb> I want to work on hurd, but I think I'm going to start with
-      minix, I own the minix book 3rd ed. it seems like a good intro to
-      operating systems in general. like I don't even know what a semaphore is
-      yet.
-    <braunr> well, enjoy learning :)
-    <spiderweb> once I finish that book, what reading do you guys recommend?
-    <spiderweb> other than the wiki
-    <braunr> i wouldn't recommend starting with a book that focuses on one
-      operating system anyway
-    <braunr> you tend to think in terms of what is done in that specific
-      implementation and compare everything else to that
-    <braunr> tannenbaum is not only the main author or minix, but also the one
-      of the book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Operating_Systems
-    <braunr>
-      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_computer_science#Operating_systems
-      should be a pretty good list :)
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-03-12
-
-    <mjjc> i have a question regarding ipc in hurd. if a task is created, does
-      it contain any default port rights in its space? i am trying to deduce
-      how one calls dir_lookup() on the root translator in glibc's open().
-    <kilobug> mjjc: yes, there are some default port rights, but I don't
-      remember the details :/
-    <mjjc> kilobug: do you know where i should search for details?
-    <kilobug> mjjc: hum either in the Hurd's hacking guide
-      https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hacking-guide/ or directly in the
-      source code of exec server/libc I would say, or just ask again the
-      question here later on to see if someone else has more information
-    <mjjc> ok, thanks
-    <pinotree> there's also rpctrace to, as the name says, trace all the rpc's
-      executed
-    <braunr> some ports are introduced in new tasks, yes
-    <braunr> see
-      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hacking-guide/hhg.html#The-main-function
-    <braunr> and
-    <braunr>
-      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/Task-Special-Ports.html#Task-Special-Ports
-    <mjjc> yes, the second link was just what i was looking for, thanks
-    <braunr> the second is very general
-    <braunr> also, the first applies to translators only
-    <braunr> if you're looking for how to do it for a non-translator
-      application, the answer is probably somewhere in glibc
-    <braunr> _hurd_startup i'd guess
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-06-15
-
-    <damo22> ive been reading a little about exokernels or unikernels, and i
-      was wondering if it might be relevant to the GNU/hurd design.  I'm not
-      too familiar with hurd terminology so forgive me.  what if every
-      privileged service was compiled as its own mini "kernel" that handled (a)
-      any hardware related to that service (b) any device nodes exposed by that
-      service etc...
-    <braunr> yes but not really that way
-    <damo22> under the current hurd model of the operating system, how would
-      you talk to hardware that required specific timings like sound hardware?
-    <braunr> through mapped memory
-    <damo22> is there such a thing as an interrupt request in hurd?
-    <braunr> obviously
-    <damo22> ok
-    <damo22> is there any documentation i can read that involves a driver that
-      uses irqs for hurd?
-    <braunr> you can read the netdde code
-    <braunr> dde being another project, there may be documentation about it
-    <braunr> somewhere else
-    <braunr> i don't know where
-    <damo22> thanks
-    <damo22> i read a little about dde, apparently it reuses existing code from
-      linux or bsd by reimplementing parts of the old kernel like an api or
-      something
-    <braunr> yes
-    <damo22> it must translate these system calls into ipc or something
-    <damo22> then mach handles it?
-    <braunr> exactly
-
-[[/system_call]].
-
-    <braunr> that's why i say it's not the exokernel way of doing things
-    <damo22> ok
-    <damo22> so does every low level hardware access go through mach?'
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> well no
-    <braunr> interrupts do
-    <braunr> ports (on x86)
-    <braunr> everything else should be doable through mapped memory
-    <damo22> seems surprising that the code for it is so small
-    <braunr> 1/ why surprising ? and 2/ "so small" ?
-    <damo22> its like the core of the OS, and yet its tiny compared to say the
-      linux kernel
-    <braunr> it's a microkenrel
-    <braunr> well, rather an hybrid
-    <braunr> the size of the equivalent code in linux is about the same
-    <damo22> ok
-    <damo22> with the model that privileged instructions get moved to
-      userspace, how does one draw the line between what is OS and what is user
-      code
-    <braunr> privileged instructions remain in the kernel
-    <braunr> that's one of the few responsibilities of the kernel
-    <damo22> i see, so it is an illusion that the user has privilege in a sense
-    <braunr> hum no
-    <braunr> or, define "illusion"
-    <damo22> well the user can suddenly do things never imaginable in linux
-    <damo22> that would have required sudo
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> well, they're not unimaginable on linux
-    <braunr> it's just not how it's meant to work
-    <damo22> :)
-    <braunr> and why things like fuse are so slow
-    <braunr> i still don't get "i see, so it is an illusion that the user has
-      privilege in a sense"
-    <damo22> because the user doesnt actually have the elevated privilege its
-      the server thing (translator)?
-    <braunr> it does
-    <braunr> not at the hardware level, but at the system level
-    <braunr> not being able to do it directly doesn't mean you can't do it
-    <damo22> right
-    <braunr> it means you need indirections
-    <braunr> that's what the kernel provides
-    <damo22> so the user cant do stuff like outb 0x13, 0x1
-    <braunr> he can
-    <braunr> he also can on linux
-    <damo22> oh
-    <braunr> that's an x86 specifity though
-    <damo22> but the user would need hardware privilege to do that
-    <braunr> no
-    <damo22> or some kind of privilege
-    <braunr> there is a permission bitmap in the TSS that allows userspace to
-      directly access some ports
-    <braunr> but that's really x86 specific, again
-    <damo22> i was using it as an example
-    <damo22> i mean you wouldnt want userspace to directly access everything
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> the only problem with that is dma reall
-    <braunr> y
-    <braunr> because dma usually access physical memory directly
-    <damo22> are you saying its good to let userspace access everything minus
-      dma?
-    <braunr> otherwise you can just centralize permissions in one place (the
-      kernel or an I/O server for example)
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> you don't let userspace access everything
-    <damo22> ah
-    <damo22> yes
-    <braunr> userspace asks for permission to access one specific part (a
-      memory range through mapping)
-    <braunr> and can't access the rest (except through dma)
-    <damo22> except through dma??  doesnt that pose a large security threat?
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> you don't give away dma access to anyone
-    <braunr> only drivers
-    <damo22> ahh
-    <braunr> and drivers are normally privileged applications anyway
-    <damo22> so a driver runs in userspace?
-    <braunr> so the only effect is that bugs can affect other address spaces
-      indirectly
-    <braunr> netdde does
-    <damo22> interesting
-    <braunr> and they all should but that's not the case for historical reasons
-    <damo22> i want to port ALSA to hurd userspace :D
-    <braunr> that's not so simple unfortunately
-    <braunr> one of the reasons it's hard is that pci access needs arbitration
-    <braunr> and we don't have that yet
-    <damo22> i imagine that would be difficult
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> also we're not sure we want alsa
-    <braunr> alsa drivers, maybe, but probably not the interface itself
-    <damo22> its tangled spaghetti
-    <damo22> but the guy who wrote JACK for audio hates OSS, and believes it is
-      rubbish due to the fact it tries to read and write to a pcm device node
-      like a filesystem with no care for timing
-    <braunr> i don't know audio well enough to tell you anything about that
-    <braunr> was that about oss3 or oss4 ?
-    <braunr> also, the hurd isn't a real time system
-    <braunr> so we don't really care about timings
-    <braunr> but with "good enough" latencies, it shouldn't be a problem
-    <damo22> but if the audio doesnt reach the sound card in time, you will get
-      a crackle or a pop or a pause in the signal
-    <braunr> yep
-    <braunr> it happens on linux too when the system gets some load
-    <damo22> some users find this unnacceptable
-    <braunr> some users want real time systems
-    <braunr> using soft real time is usually plenty enough to "solve" this kind
-      of problems
-    <damo22> will hurd ever be a real time system?
-    <braunr> no idea
-    <youpi> if somebody works on it why not
-    <youpi> it's the same as linux
-    <braunr> it should certainly be simpler than on linux though
-    <damo22> hmm
-    <braunr> microkernels are well suited for real time because of the well
-      defined interfaces they provide and the small amount of code running in
-      kernel
-    <damo22> that sounds promising
-    <braunr> you usually need to add priority inheritance and take care of just
-      a few corner cases and that's all
-    <braunr> but as youpi said, it still requires work
-    <braunr> and nobody's working on it
-    <braunr> you may want to check l4 fiasco.oc though
-
-
-# System Personality
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-07-29
-
-    <teythoon> over the past few days I gained a new understanding of the Hurd
-    <braunr> teythoon: really ? :)
-    <tschwinge> teythoon: That it's a complex and distributed system?  ;-)
-    <tschwinge> And at the same time a really simple one?
-    <tschwinge> ;-D
-    <teythoon> it's just a bunch of mach programs and some do communicate and
-      behave in a way a posix system would, but that is more a convention than
-      anything else
-    <teythoon> tschwinge: yes, kind of simple and complex :)
-    <braunr> the right terminology is "system personality"
-    <braunr> 11:03 < teythoon> over the past few days I gained a new
-      understanding of the Hurd
-    <braunr> teythoon: still no answer on that :)
-    <teythoon> braunr: ah, I spent lot's of time with the core servers and
-      early bootstrapping and now I gained the feeling that I've seen the Hurd
-      for what it really is for the first time
-
-
-# RPC Interfaces
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-03
-
-    <rekado> I'm a little confused by the hurd and incubator git repos.
-    <rekado> DDE is only found in the dde branch in incubator, but not in the
-      hurd repo.
-    <rekado> Does this mean that DDE is not ready for master yet?
-    <braunr> yes
-    <rekado> If DDE is not yet used in the hurd (except in the dde branch in
-      the incubator repo), does pfinet use some custom glue code to use the
-      Linux drivers?
-    <braunr> this has nothing to do with pfinet
-    <braunr> pfinet is the networking stack, netdde are the networking drivers
-    <braunr> the interface between them doesn't change, whether drivers are in
-      kernel or not
-    <rekado> I see
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-20
-
-    <giuscri> HI there, I have no previous knowledge about OS's. I'm trying to
-      undestand the structure of the Hurd and the comparison between, say,
-      Linux way of managing stuff ...
-    <giuscri> for instance, I read: "Unlike other popular kernel software, the
-      Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without
-      compromising its design."
-    <giuscri> that means that while for adding feature to the Linux-kernel you
-      have to add some stuff `inside` a procedure, whilst in the Hurd kernel
-      you can just, in principle at least, add an object and making the kernel
-      using it?...
-    <giuscri> Am I making stuff too simple?
-    <giuscri> Thanks
-    <braunr> not exactly
-    <braunr> unix historically has a "file-oriented" structure
-    <braunr> the hurd allows servers to implement whatever type they want,
-      through the ability to create custom interfaces
-    <braunr> custom interfaces means custom calls, custom semantics, custom
-      methods on objects
-    <braunr> you're not restricted to the set of file interfaces (open, seek,
-      read, write, select, close, etc..) that unix normally provides
-    <giuscri> braunr: uhm ...some example?
-    <braunr> see processes for example
-    <braunr> see
-      http://darnassus.sceen.net/gitweb/savannah_mirror/hurd.git/tree/HEAD:/hurd
-    <braunr> this is the collection of interfaces the hurd provides
-    <braunr> most of them map to unix calls, because gnu aims at posix
-      compatibility too
-    <braunr> some are internal, like processes
-    <braunr> or authentication
-    <braunr> but most importantly, you're not restricted to that, you can add
-      your own interfaces
-    <braunr> on a unix, you'd need new system calls
-    <braunr> or worse, extending through the catch-all ioctl call
-    <giuscri> braunr: mhn ...sorry, not getting that.
-    <braunr> what part ?
-    <kilobug> ioctl has become such a mess :s
-    <giuscri> braunr: when you say that Unix is `file-oriented` you're
-      referring to the fact that sending/receiving data to/from the kernel is
-      designed like sending/receiving data to/from a file ...?
-    <braunr> not merely sending/receiving
-    <braunr> note how formatted your way of thinking is
-    <braunr> you directly think in terms of sending/receiving (i.e. read and
-      write)
-    <giuscri> braunr: (yes)
-    <braunr> that's why unix is file oriented, access to objects is done that
-      way
-    <braunr> on the hurd, the file interface is one interface
-    <braunr> there is nothing preventing you from implementing services with a
-      different interface
-    <braunr> as a real world example, people interested in low latency
-      profesionnal audio usually dislike send/recv
-    <braunr> see
-      http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2003/zkm/slides/paul_davis-jack/unix.html for
-      example
-    <kilobug> braunr: how big and messy ioctl has become is a good proof that
-      the Unix way, while powerful, does have its limits
-    <braunr> giuscri: keep in mind the main goal of the hurd is extensibility
-      without special privileges
-    <giuscri> braunr: privileges?
-    <braunr> root
-    <giuscri> braunr: what's wrong with privileges?
-    <braunr> they allow malicious/buggy stuff to happne
-    <braunr> and have dramatic effects
-    <giuscri> braunr: you're obviously *not* referring to the fact that once
-      one have the root privileges could change some critical-data
-    <giuscri> ?
-    <braunr> i'm referring to why privilege separation exists in the first
-      place
-    <braunr> if you have unprivileged users, that's because you don't want them
-      to mess things up
-    <braunr> on unix, extending the system requires privileges, giving those
-      who do it the ability to destroy everything
-    <giuscri> braunr: yes, I think the same
-    <braunr> the hurd is designed to allow unprivileged users to extend their
-      part of the system, and to some extent share that with other users
-    <braunr> although work still remains to completely achieve that
-    <giuscri> braunr: mhn ...that's the `server`-layer between the
-      single-application and kernel ?
-    <braunr> the multi-server based approach not only allows that, but
-      mitigates damage even when privileged servers misbehave
-    <braunr> one aspect of it yes
-    <braunr> but as i was just saying, even root servers can't mess things too
-      much
-    <braunr> for example, our old (sometimes buggy) networking stack can be
-      restarted when it behaves wrong
-    <braunr> the only side effect being some applications (ssh and exim come to
-      mind) which need to be restarted too because they don't expect the
-      network stack to be restarted
-    <giuscri> braunr: ...instead?
-    <braunr> ?
-    <kilobug> giuscri: on Linux, if the network stack crash/freezes, you don't
-      have any other option than rebooting the system - usually with a nice
-      "kernel pani"
-    <kilobug> giuscri: and you may even get filesystem corruption "for free" in
-      the bundle
-    <braunr> and hoping it didn't corrupt something important like file system
-      caches before being flushed
-    <giuscri> kilobug, braunr : mhn, ook
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-10-13
-
-    <ahungry> ahh, ^c isn't working to cancel a ping - is there alternative?
-    <braunr> ahungry: ctrl-c does work, you just missed something somewhere and
-      are running a shell directly on a console, without a terminal to handle
-      signals
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-04
-
-    <braunr> nalaginrut: you can't use the hurd for real embedded stuff without
-      a lot of work on it
-    <braunr> but the hurd design applies very well to embedded environments
-    <braunr> the fact that we're able to dynamically link practically all hurd
-      servers against the c library can visibly reduce the system code size 
-    <braunr> it also reduces the TCB
-    <nalaginrut> what about the memory occupation? 
-    <braunr> code size is about memory occupation
-    <teythoon> also, the system is composable like lego, don't need tcp - don't
-      include pfinet then
-    <braunr> the memory overheald of a capability based system like the hurd
-      are, well, capabilities
-    <braunr> teythoon: that's not an argument compared to modular kernels like
-      linux
-    <teythoon> yes it is
-    <braunr> why ?
-    <braunr> if you don't need tcp in linux, you just don't load it
-    <braunr> same thing
-    <teythoon> ok, right
-    <braunr> on the other hand, a traditional unix kernel can never be linked
-      against the c library
-    <braunr> much less dynamically
-    <teythoon> right
-    <nalaginrut> I think the point is that it's easy to cut, since it has
-      better modularity than monolithic, and could be done in userland relative
-      easier
-    <braunr> modularity isn't better
-    <braunr> that's a big misconception
-    <teythoon> also, restarting components is easier on a distributed system
-    <braunr> on the hurd, this is a side effect
-    <braunr> and it doesn't apply well
-    <nalaginrut> braunr:  oops, misconception
-    <braunr> many core servers such as proc, auth, exec, the root fs server
-      can't be restarted at all
-    <teythoon> not yet
-    <braunr> and servers like pfinet can be restarted, but at the cost of posix
-      servers not expecting that
-    <braunr> looping on errors such as EBADF because the target socket doesn't
-      exist any more
-    <teythoon> I've been working on a restartable exec server during some of my
-      gsoc weekends
-    <braunr> ah right
-    <braunr> linux has kexec
-    <braunr> and can be patched at run time
-    <nalaginrut> sounds like Hurd needs something similar to generalizable
-      continuation
-    <braunr> so again, it's not a real advantage
-    <braunr> no
-    <nalaginrut> sorry serilizable
-    <braunr> that would persistence
-    <braunr> personally, i don't want it at all
-    <teythoon> yes it is a real advantage, b/c the means of communication
-      (ports) is common to every IPC method on Hurd, and ports are first class
-      objects
-    <teythoon> so preserving the state is much easier on Hurd
-    <braunr> if a monolithic kernel can do it too, it's not a real advantage
-    <teythoon> yes, but it is more work
-    <braunr> that is one true advantage of the hurd
-    <braunr> but don't reuse it each time
-    <nalaginrut> oh, that's nice for the ports
-    <teythoon> why not?
-    <braunr> what we're talking about here is resilience
-    <braunr> the fact that it's easier to implement doesn't mean the hurd is
-      better because it has resilience
-    <braunr> it simply means the hurd is better because it's easier to
-      implement things on it
-    <braunr> same for development in general
-    <braunr> debugging
-    <braunr> virtualization
-    <braunr> etc..
-    <nalaginrut> yes, but why we stick to compare it to monolithic
-    <braunr> but it's still *one* property
-    <teythoon> well, minix advertises this feature a lot, even if minix can
-      only restart very simple things like printer servers
-    <braunr> minix sucks
-    <braunr> let them advertise what they can
-    <teythoon> ^^
-    <nalaginrut> it has cool features, that's enough, no need to find a feature
-      that monolithic can never done
-    <braunr> no it's not enough
-    <braunr> minix isn't a general purpose system
-    <braunr> let's just not compare it to general purpose systems
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-08
-
-    <teythoon> and, provided you have suitable language bindings, you can
-      replace almost any hurd server with your own implementation in any
-      language
-    <crocket> teythoon: language bindings?
-    <crocket> Do you mean language bindings against C libraries?
-    <teythoon> either that or for the low level mach primitives
-    <crocket> For your information, IPC is independent of languages.
-    <teythoon> sure, that's the beauty
-    <crocket> Why is hurd best for replacing parts written in C with other
-      languages?
-    <teythoon> because Hurd consists of many servers, each server managing one
-      kind of resource
-    <teythoon> so you have /hurd/proc managing posix processes
-    <teythoon> you could reimplement /hurd/proc in say python or go, and
-      replace just that component of the Hurd system
-    <teythoon> you cannot do this with any other (general purpose) operating
-      system that I know of
-    <teythoon> you could incrementally replace the Hurd with your own
-      Hurd-compatible set of servers written in X
-    <teythoon> use a language that you can verify, i.e. prove that a certain
-      specification is fulfilled, and you end up with an awesome stable and
-      secure operating system
-    <crocket> Any microkernel OS fits the description.
-    <crocket> teythoon, Does hurd have formal protocols for IPC communications?
-    <teythoon> sure, name some other general purpose and somewhat
-      posix-compatible microkernel based operating system please
-    <teythoon> what do you mean by formal protocols ?
-    <crocket> IPC communications need to be defined in documents.
-    <teythoon> the "wire" format is specified of course, the semantic not so
-      much
-    <crocket> network protocols exist.
-    <crocket> HTTP is a transport protocol.
-    <crocket> Without formal protocols, IPC communications suffer from
-      debugging difficulties.
-    <crocket> Formal protocols make it possible to develop and test each module
-      independently.
-    <teythoon> as I said, the wire format is specified, the semantics only in
-      written form in the source
-    <teythoon> this is an example of the ipc specification for the proc server
-      http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git/tree/hurd/process.defs
-    <crocket> teythoon, how file server interacts with file clients should be
-      defined as a formal protocol, too.
-    <teythoon> do you consider the ipc description a kind of formal protocol ?
-    <crocket>
-      http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git/tree/hurd/process.defs can
-      be considered as a formal protocol.
-    <crocket> However, the file server protocol should be defined on top of IPC
-      protocol.
-    <teythoon> the file server protocol is in fs.defs
-    <teythoon> every protocol spoken is defined in that ipc description
-      language
-    <teythoon> it is used to derive code from
-    <braunr> crocket: not any system can be used to implement system services
-      in any language
-    <braunr> in theory, they do, but in theory only
-    <braunr> the main reason they don't is because most aren't posix compliant
-      from the ground up
-    <braunr> posix compliance is achieved through virtualization
-    <braunr> which isolates services too much for them to get useful,
-      notwithstanding the impacts on performance, memory, etc..
-    <crocket> braunr, Do you mean it's difficult to achieve POSIX compliance
-      with haskell?
-    <braunr> crocket: i mean most l4 based systems aren't posix
-    <braunr> genode isn't posix
-    <braunr> helenos is by design not posix
-    <braunr> the hurd is the only multi server system providing such a good
-      level of posix conformance
-    <braunr> and with tls on the way, we'll support even more non-posix
-      applications that are nonetheless very common on unices because of
-      historical interfaces still present, such as mcontext
-    <braunr> and modern ones
-    <braunr> e.g. ruby is now working, go should be there after tls
-    * teythoon drools over the perspective of having go on the Hurd...
-    <crocket> braunr, Is posix relevant now?
-    <braunr> it's hugely relevant
-    <braunr> conforming to posix and some native unix interfaces is the only
-      way to reuse a lot of existing production applications
-    <braunr> and for the matter at hand (system services not written in c), it
-      means almost readily getting runtimes for other languages than c
-    <braunr> something other microkernel based system will not have
-    <braunr> imagine this
-    <braunr> one day, one of us could create a company for a hurd-like system,
-      presenting this idea as the killer feature
-    <braunr> by supporting posix, customers could port their software with very
-      little effort
-    <braunr> *very little effort* is what makes software attractive
-    <crocket>
-      http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1806585/why-is-linux-called-a-monolithic-kernel/1806597#1806597
-      says "The disadvantage to a microkernel is that asynchronous IPC
-      messaging can become very difficult to debug, especially if fibrils are
-      implemented."
-    <crocket> " GNU Hurd suffers from these debugging problems (reference)."
-    <braunr> stackoverflow is usually a nice place
-    <braunr> but concerning microkernel stuff, you'll read a lot of crap
-      anywhere
-    <braunr> whether it's sync or async, tracking references is a hard task
-    <braunr> it's a bit more difficult in distributed systems, but not that
-      much if the proper debugging features are provided
-    <braunr> we actually don't suffer from that too much
-    <braunr> many of us have been able to debug reference leaks in the past,
-      without too much trouble
-    <braunr> we lack some tools that would give us a better view of the system
-      state
-    <crocket> braunr, But is it more difficult with microkernel?
-    <braunr> crocket: it's more difficult with distributed systems
-    <crocket> How much more difficult?
-    <braunr> i don't know
-    <crocket> distributed systems
-    <braunr> not much
-    <crocket> braunr, How do you define distributed systems?
-    <braunr> crocket: not monolithic
-    <crocket> braunr, Hurd is distributed, then.
-    <braunr> multiserver if you prefer
-    <braunr> yes it is
-    <crocket> braunr, So it is more difficult with hurd.
-    <crocket> How much more difficult? How do you debug?
-    <braunr> just keep in mind that a monolithic system can run on a
-      microkenrel
-    <braunr> we use tools that show us references
-    <crocket> braunr, like?
-    <braunr> like portinfo
-    <crocket> braunr, Does hurd use unix-socket to implement IPC?
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> unix-socket use mach ipc
-    <crocket> I'm confused
-    <braunr> ipc is provided by the microkernel, gnumach (a variant of mach)
-    <braunr> unix sockets are provided by one of the hurd servers (pflocal)
-    <braunr> servers and clients communicate through mach ipc
-    <crocket> braunr, Do you think it's feasible to build servers in haskell?
-    <braunr> why not ?
-    <crocket> ok
-    <teythoon> I've been thinking about that
-    <teythoon> in go, with cgo, you can call go functions from c code
-    <teythoon> so it should be possible to create bindings for say libtrivfs
-    <crocket> I'd like to write an OS in clojure or haskell.
-    <braunr> crocket: what for ?
-    <crocket> braunr, I want to see a better system programming language than
-      C.
-    <braunr> i don't see how clojure or haskell would be "better system
-      programming languages" than c
-    <braunr> and even assuming that, what for ?
-    <crocket> braunr, It's better for programmers.
-    <crocket> haskell
-    <crocket> haskell is expressive.
-    <braunr> personally i disagree
-    <braunr> it's better for some things
-    <braunr> not for system programming
-    <gnufreex> For system programming, Google Go is trying to replace C.  But I
-      doubt it will.
-    <braunr> we may not be referring to the same thing here when we say "system
-      programming"
-    <crocket> braunr, What do you think is a better one?
-    <braunr> crocket: i don't think there is a better one currently
-    <crocket> braunr, Even Rust and D?
-    <braunr> i don't know them well enough
-    <braunr> certainly not D if it's what i think it is
-    <crocket> C is too slow.
-    <crocket> C is too slow to develop.
-    <braunr> depends
-    <braunr> again, i disagree
-    <braunr> rust looks good but i don't know it well to comment
-    <crocket> C is a tank, and clojure is an airplane.
-    <crocket> A tank is reliable but slow.
-    <crocket> Clojure is fast but lacks some accuracy.
-    <braunr> c is as reliable as the developer is skilled with it
-    <braunr> it's clearly not a tank
-    <braunr> there are many traps
-    <gnufreex> crocket: are you suggesting to rewrite Hurd in Clojure?
-    <crocket> no
-    <crocket> Why rewrite hud?
-    <crocket> hurd
-    <crocket> I'd rather start from scratch.
-    <braunr> which is what a rewrite is
-    <gnufreex> I am not expert on Clojure, but I don't think it is made for
-      system programming.
-    <gnufreex> If you want alternate language, I thing Go is only  serious
-      candidate other than C
-    <crocket> Or Rust
-    <crocket> However, some people wrote OSes in haskell.
-    <braunr> again, why ?
-    <braunr> if it's only for the sake of using another language, i think it's
-      bad reason
-    <crocket> Because haskell provides a high level of abstraction that helps
-      programmers.
-    <crocket> It is more secure with monads.
-    <gnufreex> If you want your OS to become successful Free Software project,
-      you have to use popular language. Haskell is not. 
-    <gnufreex> Most Haskell programmers are not into kernels
-    <gnufreex> They do high level stuff.
-    <gnufreex> So little contributors.
-    <braunr> crocket: so you aim at security ?
-    <gnufreex> I mean, candidats for contribution
-    <crocket> braunr, security and higher abstraction.
-    <braunr> i don't understand higher abstraction
-    <crocket> braunr, FP can be useful to systems.
-    <braunr> FP ?
-    <neal> functional programming
-    <braunr> right
-    <braunr> but you can abstract a lot with c too, with more efforts
-    <crocket> braunr, like that's easy.
-    <braunr> it's not that hard
-    <braunr> i'm just questioning the goals and the solution of using a
-      particular language
-    <braunr> the reason c is still the preferred language for system
-      programming is because it provides control over how the hardware does
-      stuff
-    <braunr> which is very important for performance
-    <braunr> the hurd never took off because of bad performance
-    <braunr> performance doesn't mean doing things faster, it means being able
-      to do things or not, or doing things a new way
-    <braunr> so ok, great, you have your amazing file system written in
-      haskell, and you find out it doesn't scale at all beyond some threshold
-      of processors or memory
-    <crocket> braunr, L4 is fast.
-    <braunr> l4 is merely an architecture abstraction
-    <braunr> and it's not written in haskell :p
-    <braunr> don't assume anything running on top of something fast will be
-      fast
-    <crocket> Hurd is slow and written in C.
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> not because of c though
-    <crocket> Becuase it's microkernel?
-    <braunr> because c wasn't used well enough to make the most of the hardware
-      in many places
-    <braunr> far too many places
-    <crocket> A microkernel can be as fast as a monolithic kernel according to
-      L4.
-    <braunr> no
-    <braunr> it can't
-    <braunr> it can for very specific cases
-    <braunr> almost none of which are real world
-    <braunr> but that's not the problem
-    <braunr> again, i'm questioning your choice of another language in relation
-      to your goals, that's all
-    <braunr> c can do things you really can't do easily in other languages
-    <braunr> be aware of that
-    <crocket> braunr, "Monolithic kernel are faster than microkernel . while
-      The first microkernel Mach is 50% slower than Monolithic kernel while
-      later version like L4 only 2% or 4% slower than the Monolithic kernel ."
-    <braunr> 14:05 < braunr> but concerning microkernel stuff, you'll read a
-      lot of crap anywhere
-    <braunr> simple counterexample :
-    <braunr> the measurements you're giving consider a bare l4 kernel with
-      nothing on top of it
-    <braunr> doing thread-to-thread ipc
-    <braunr> this model of communication is hardly used in any real world
-      application
-    <braunr> one of the huge features people look for with microkernels are
-      capabilities
-    <braunr> and that alone will bump your 4% up
-    <braunr> since capabilities will be used for practically every ipc
-    <crocket> ok
-
-
-# Hurd From Scratch
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-11-30
-
-    <hurdmaster> because I think there is no way to understand the whole pile,
-      you need to go step by step
-    <hurdmaster> for example, I'm starting with mach only, then adding one
-      server, then another and on each step I have working system
-    <hurdmaster> that's how I want to understand it
-    <teythoon> you are interested in the early bootstrapping of the hurd system
-      ?
-    <hurdmaster> now I'm starting debian gnu/mach, it hungs, show me black
-      screen and I have no idea how to fix it
-    <teythoon> if you are unable to fix this, why do you think you can build a
-      hurd system from scratch ?
-    <hurdmaster> not gnu/mach, gnu/hurd I mean
-    <teythoon> or, you could describe your problem in more detail and one of
-      the nice people around here might help you ;)
-    <hurdmaster> as I said, it will be easier to understand and fix bugs, if I
-      will go step by step, and I will be able to see where bugs appears
-    <hurdmaster> so you should help me with that 
-    <teythoon> and I tend to disagree
-    <teythoon> but you could always read my blog. you'll learn lots of things
-      about bootstrapping a hurd system
-    <teythoon> but it's complicated
-    <hurdmaster> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
-    <teythoon> also, you'll need at least four hurd servers before you'll
-      actually see much
-    <teythoon> five
-    <teythoon> yeah, i know lfs
-    <hurdmaster> if somebody is interested in creating such a project, let me
-      know
-    <teythoon> you seem to be interested
-    <hurdmaster> yes, but I need the a real hurd master to help me
-    <teythoon> become one. fix your system and get to know it
-    <hurdmaster> I need knowledge, somebody built the system but didn't write
-      documentation about it, I have to extract it from your heads
-    <teythoon> hurdmaster: extract something from here
-      http://teythoon.cryptobitch.de
-    <teythoon> I need my head ;)
-    <hurdmaster> thanks
-    <hurdmaster> okay, what's the smallest thing I can run?
-    <teythoon> life of a Hurd system starts with the root filesystem, and the
-      exec server is loaded but not started
-    <teythoon> you could get rid of the exec server and replace the root
-      filesystem with your own program
-    <teythoon> statically linked, uses no unix stuff, only mach stuff
-    <hurdmaster> can I get 'hello world' on pure mach?
-    <teythoon> you could
-    <teythoon> hurdmaster: actually, here it is:
-      http://darnassus.sceen.net/gitweb/rbraun/mach_print.git/
-    <teythoon> compile it statically, put it somewhere in /boot
-    <teythoon> make sure you're running a debug kernel
-    <teythoon> load it from grub instead of /hurd/ext2fs.static
-    <teythoon> look at the grub config for how this is done
-    <teythoon> let me know if it worked ;)
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-03-04
-
-    <bwright> Can I run a single instance of hurd on multiple computers
-    <bwright> With them acting as different servers?
-    <braunr> no
-    <bwright> Like the fs server on one pc etc.
-    <bwright> Which os could I do this with?
-    <bwright> I assumed Mach RPC would support that.
-    <braunr> it can
-    <braunr> but we don't use it that way
-    <braunr> plan9 is probably better suited to what you want
-    <braunr> inferno too
-    <braunr> maybe dragonflybsd
-    <bwright> Yep.
-    <bwright> irAwesome.
-    <bwright> Plan9 is exactly it.
-    <braunr> enjoy
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-03-11
-
-    <ltx> Does anyone have a distributed OS over GNU/hurd project running?
-    <ltx> (GNU/hurd has many of the utilities to make this easy, but it still
-      requires some more utilities for transparent computation)
-    <braunr> not at the moment, no
-    <braunr> and i consider our ipc inappropriate if you want system able to
-      run over heterogeneous hardware
-    <braunr> or rather, our RPCs
-    <ltx> I haven't spent the time, this is speculative (in the worse "let's do
-      everything magically!" way.)
-    <ltx> Just wondering if this exists outside of plan9 (which is limited in
-      some ways.)
-    <braunr> dragonflybsd had plans for a SSI
-    <braunr> there are ancient research systems that actually did the job
-    <braunr> such as amoeba
-    <braunr> here at the hurd, we just don't have the manpower, and the people
-      spending time on the project have other interests
-    <ltx> Yeah, that seems like a large problem.
-    <ltx> GNU/hurd is self hosting (in the "I like working on it" way), yes?
-    <ltx> I've done some work on it, but don't really know how nice it is.
-    <braunr> yes it is
-    <ltx> Working from a microkernel to add pseudo-SSI features to a bunch of
-      servers seems like a much more trivial task than, say, modifying TLK.
-    <braunr> posix conformance and stability are good enough that more than 70%
-      of debian packages build and most of them work fine
-    <braunr> tlk the linux kernel ?
-    <ltx> Yes.
-    <braunr> first time i see this acronym :)
-    <braunr> and yes i agree, a microkernel is much much more suited for that
-    <braunr> but then, i consider a microkernel better suited for practically
-      everything ... :)
-    <ltx> :)
-    <ltx> I'm wondering how to mix SSI with network-awareness.
-    <braunr> mach used to have a network server
-    <braunr> which would merely act as a proxy for capabilities
-    <braunr> network drivers were in kernel though
-    <ltx> That's the simple way of sharing the sources.
-    <ltx> I'm wondering how we can make a software stack that's network aware;
-      completely transparent SSI can lead to inefficiencies in userspace, as it
-      may do things the kernels won't expect. Having to deal with the network
-      through a network server is a headache.
-    <braunr> what kind of problems do you have in mind ?
-    <ltx> Still working on defining the problem. I think that's half the
-      problem.
-    <ltx> (For any problem.)
-    <ltx> Beyond that, it's just some coding ;)
-    <braunr> ok
-    <braunr> sounds interesting :)
-    <braunr> i'd love to see a modern SSI in action
-    <braunr> but that's really a secondary goal for me so glad to see someone
-      making this his primary goal
-    <braunr> doctoral thesis ?
-    <ltx> ... Undergrad who's been hacking away since grade school.
-    <braunr> heh :)
-    <ltx> 18 y/o sophomore at a respected technical college, dealing with
-      boredom :)
-    <braunr> well throroughly thinking about "defining the problem" is an
-      excellent reflex
-    <teythoon> :) stick around, the hurd is fun
-    <braunr> it does help fight boredom a lot indeed ...... )
-    <braunr> :)
-    <cluck> maybe it'd be possible to port the relevant features from plan9 now
-      that there is a gpl'ed version
-    <teythoon> either way, we'd need network-transparent mach messaging
-    <teythoon> which mach messaging could do, but gnumach does not implement
-      this currently
-    <cluck> teythoon: afaiui if there was a proper 9fs2000 hurd server the rest
-      could be hidden behind the curtains 
-    <teythoon> ah, well, that sounds like a 9p network filesystem translator
-    <cluck> teythoon: also iirc plan9 uses libmach for some things so i suppose
-      a port wouldn't be completely impossible
-    <teythoon> given that in plan9 everything is a file, that might be enough
-      to use plan9 services
-    <cluck> teythoon: yes, it'd be the easiest route (at least initially) i
-      believe
-    <teythoon> careful, lots of stuff is named mach-something
-    <cluck> bloody ernest mach and his damned famous-ness-ish
-    <cluck> =)
-    <teythoon> :D