rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 139 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn b/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index dfd41837..00000000
--- a/open_issues/benefits_of_a_native_hurd_implementation.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2013 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]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
-
-What are the benefits of a native GNU/Hurd system, now that Linux et al. can do
-so much? Think [[hurd/translator]]s: FUSE, [[hurd/subhurd]]s: User-Mode-Linux
-and other virtualization techiques, and so on.
-
-It is possible to begin [[implementing_Hurd_on_top_of_another_system]], but...
-
-IRC, #hurd, August / September 2010
-
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: but Neal and I were not happy with that alone.  We were
-      looking for deeper improvements to the system, for, I think, sound
-      reasons.  That is what brought us to the L4/Coyotos technologies
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: as you are writing a kernel in user space, you can still
-      do kernel improvements there
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: if you take it very far, you end up with a kernel that
-      runs Linux in user space (just flip the two) for the drivers
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: that is what the L4 people did with the DDE
-
-[[/DDE]].
-
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: so, with these different cuts, there are different
-      opportunities. on the one end, you can run Linux as normal and get some
-      of the Hurd features such as translators in some programs.  At the other
-      end, you can do whatever you want and run some linux code for the drivers
-      or none at all.
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: one of the big questions then becomes: at which point
-      can the advantages offered by the Hurd be realized?
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: and that's not entirely clear to me
-    <marcusb> when I worked on this with Neal, we pushed further and further
-      into need-to-change-everything land
-    <marcusb> while the current efforts on the Hurd seem to be more equivalent
-      to the could-run-it-in-userspace-on-top-of-Linux camp
-    <ArneBab> marcusb: for that I think we need a way to move towards them step
-      by step. Would it be possible to get the advantages of better resource
-      allocation with a Viengoos in userspace, too?
-    <ArneBab> and when that is stable, just switch over?
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: I don't know.  I suspect these people will know before
-      us: http://lxc.sourceforge.net/
-    <ArneBab> something like implementing flip points: flip Linux with Hurd to
-      Hund with Linux. Flip Mach with L4 to L4 with Mach.
-    <ArneBab> lxc sounds interesting.
-    <marcusb> note that these efforts address security concerns more than other
-      concerns
-    <marcusb> so they will get isolation long before sharing is even considered
-    <marcusb> but some of the issues are the same
-    <marcusb> once you allow malware to do what it wants, it's a small step to
-      also allow the user to what he wants :)
-    <ArneBab> it kinda looks like hacking it where it doesn’t really fit again…
-    <ArneBab> there I ask myself when the point comes that doing a cleaner
-      design offsets the popularity
-    <ArneBab> they are pushing more and more stuff into userspace
-    <ArneBab> which is a good thing (to me)
-    <ArneBab> it’s hard to clearly describe how, but even though I like having
-      more stuff in userspace, the way it is bolted onto Linux doesn’t feel
-      good for me.
-    <ArneBab> FUSE is cool, but if I use it, I am at a disadvantage compared to
-      a non-fuse user
-    <ArneBab> while in the Hurd, these additional options are on eqal footing.
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: are they pushing more and more into user space?  I don't
-      think so.  I see more of the reverse, actually
-    <marcusb> or maybe both
-    <ArneBab> FUSE, lxd and scheduling in userspace move to userspace
-    <ArneBab> well, KMS moved to the kernel
-    <ArneBab> to avoid flickering when switching between X and the console?
-    <ArneBab> marcusb: Do you experience FUSE lxc and such being secondclass in
-      Linux, too, or is that just a strange feeling of me?
-    <ArneBab> marcusb: and that splits the users into those who can get stuff
-      into the kernel and those who can only work in userspace – which I don’t
-      really like.
-    <ArneBab> That’s one more advantage of the Hurd: eqal footing for all
-      (except the Mach hackers, but they have a very limited terrain)
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: but UML kernel module is minimal, and Linus didn't have
-      a principled objection to it (but just wanted a more general solution)
-    <marcusb> ArneBab: as a side note, although people keep complaining, the
-      linux kernel seems to be growing steadily, so getting stuff into the
-      kernel doesn't seem too hard.  8-O
-
----
-
-IRC, #hurd, 2010-12-28
-
-    <tim> but is monolithic so bad?
-    <sartakov> yep 
-    <braunr> no it's not
-    <braunr> proof: it works very well for most people
-    [...]
-    <braunr> the real problem is extensibility and interfaces
-    <tim> :/ whats the huge advantage of micro-k
-    <braunr> extensibility
-    <tim> over?
-    <braunr> you can add a whole lot of new services for new purposes with new
-      interfaces without changing the kernel
-    <tim> oright
-    <braunr> it basically boils down to the original Unix idea: everything does
-      one thing well
-    [...]
-    <kilobug> well, I would say extensibility and fault-tolerance are the two
-      key advantages
-    <braunr> taht's a side effect
-    <braunr> there are fault taulerant monolithic kernels
-    [...]
-    <braunr> tolerant*
-    <braunr> and the hurd is for now a non fault-tolerant microkernel based OS
-      :/
-    [...]
-    <kilobug> braunr: not really; you can't ensure fault tolerance for code
-      running in kernel space, code running in kernel space can do everything,
-      including reboot, crash, ...
-    [...]
-    <braunr> kilobug: right, a monolithick kernel is less folt-tolerant than a
-      well designed/implemented microkernel based os
-
-It turns out that it is perfectly possible to isolate services running in the
-same address space, as it was done in projects such as Singularity, the idea
-being that the code is verified through static analysis when installed (but
-this requires a language other than C).
-
-    <kilobug> braunr: well, the Hurd is buggy nowadays, but things like an
-      ext2fs translator doing a segfault and being restarted is a
-      fault-tolerance that would be almost impossible to have in Linux
-    <kilobug> braunr: sure, you can have fault-tolerance with FUSE, but FUSE is
-      applying micro-kernel paradigm to Linux
-    [...]
-    <braunr> the reason i don't care that much about fault tolerance is that
-      Linux obviously shows a monolithic kernel can run almost flawlessly if
-      well written
-    <braunr> but extensibility is really another matter