rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 268 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/linux_as_the_kernel.mdwn b/open_issues/linux_as_the_kernel.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 2656b1a3..00000000
--- a/open_issues/linux_as_the_kernel.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,268 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012, 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]]."]]"""]]
-
-Instead of attempting a [[history/port_to_another_microkernel]], or writing an
-own one, an implementation of a Hurd system could use another existing
-operating system/kernel, like [[UNIX]], for example, the Linux kernel.  This is
-not a [[microkernel]], but that is not an inherent hindrance; depending on what
-the goals are.
-
-There has been an attempt for building a [[Mach_on_top_of_POSIX]].
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-02-08
-
-Richard's X-15 Mach re-implementation:
-
-    <braunr> and in case you didn't notice, it's stalled
-    <braunr> actually i don't intend to work on it for the time being
-    <braunr> i'd rather do as neal suggested: take linux, strip it, and give it
-      a mach interface
-    <braunr> (if your goal really is to get something usable for real world
-      tasks)
-    <antrik> braunr: why would you want to strip down Linux? I think one of the
-      major benefits of building a Linux-Frankenmach would be the ability to
-      use standard Linux functionality alongside Hurd...
-    <braunr> we could have a linux x86_64 based mach replacement in "little"
-      time, with a compatible i386 interface for the hurd
-    <braunr> antrik: well, many of the vfs and network subsystems would be hard
-      to use
-    <antrik> BTW, one of the talks at FOSDEM was about the possibility of using
-      different kernels for Genode, and pariticularily focused on the
-      possibilities with using Linux... unfortunately, I wasn't able to follow
-      the whole talk; but they mentioned similar possibilities to what I'm
-      envisioning here :-)
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-03-28
-
-    <mel__> is there currently any work going on with respect to
-      Mach-alternatives?
-    <antrik> mel__: no
-    <antrik> we have other priorities to take care of :-)
-    <braunr> antrik: i still intend to try giving linux a "mach personality" :)
-    <braunr> antrik: but i don't have much time for development currently :(
-    <mel__> antrik: which means that the hope is that Mach can be turned into
-      something really well working (i.e. secure/scalable/etc.)?
-    <antrik> mel__: yes, that's the venue we are pursuing
-    <antrik> (and IMHO the right one... though the Linux layer mentioned by
-      braunr is also one of my favourite projects, that we should pursue *in
-      parallel* to the existing Mach-based implementation)
-    <mel__> what is this Linux Layer exactly?
-    <mel__> a Linux instance running on top of Mach in parallel to Hurd
-      serverS?
-    <braunr> mel__: not exactly
-    <braunr> mel__: it would involve adding a mach layer on top of linux
-      actually
-    <braunr> mel__: so that linux can be used as a mach kernel
-    <mel__> Ah!
-    <mel__> Running Hurd on top of Linux
-    <mel__> :-D
-    <mel__> Funny
-    <braunr> ironic, yes
-    <braunr> but very pragmatic
-    <mel__> and THEN
-    <antrik> yeah. I most like the name: Hurd Emulation Layer on
-      Linux... i.e. HELL :-)
-    <mel__> we use a device driver framework something so that we can use Linux
-      device drivers in Hurd!
-    <mel__> on top of Linux....
-    <braunr> yes
-    <braunr> i guess a transition phase would include using in kernel drivers
-      directly for a while
-    <mel__> and somebody is working on that?
-    <antrik> mel__: well, for using Linux drivers we are persuing DDE, which
-      allows us doing that with Mach as well
-    <braunr> then grabbing them out of the kernel and into dde
-    <braunr> not yet
-    <antrik> (in fact we have been using Linux drivers since forever... they
-      just haven't been updated for ages)
-    <mel__> I would _guess_ that it is not that hard.
-    <braunr> it's not
-    <mel__> Basically one would need to implement the message passing interface
-      thing in linux I guess.
-    <braunr> and many exported kernel objects like tasks, threads, etc..
-    <braunr> and implement all the RPCs normally implemented by the kernel
-    <braunr> but it's doable
-    <antrik> mel__: the IPC aspect is one part, but probably the less tricky
-      one. the external pager interface is really the crucial element
-    <mel__> uh
-    <mel__> yeah
-    <mel__> hooking into linux virtual memory stuff
-    <mel__> sounds delicate
-    <braunr> it's true that some interactions between the linux VM and file
-      systems (the linux equivalent of our pagers) is synchronous
-    <braunr> but i don't think it would be that hard considering the amount of
-      facilities available in linux
-    <braunr> it's just work, takes time, needs debugging, reviewing, testing,
-      etc..
-    <lcc> hurd on top of linux. how would that work?
-    <braunr> 15:30 < braunr> antrik: i still intend to try giving linux a "mach
-      personality" :)
-    <braunr> lcc: 7 system calls and a few hundreds of RPCs on top, the
-      internal magic of course, and voila ..
-    <antrik> of course porting Mach still requires work
-    <mel__> that would then be GNU/Hurd/Linux
-    <mel__> :-)
-    <antrik> hehe
-    <braunr> eh
-    <antrik> braunr: BTW, are you more thinking of a userspace solution on top
-      of standard Linux mechanisms, or additions to Linux itself?...
-    <antrik> (we probably talked about it already, but I don't remember all the
-      details...)
-    <braunr> antrik: adding to linux
-    <antrik> do you think a pure userspace solution would be realistic at all?
-      (at the expense of some performance of course)
-    <mel__> it's probably comparable to the qemu vs. qemu/kvm thing
-    <antrik> yeah, I guess that pretty much sums it up...
-    <braunr> antrik: i don't know :/
-    <antrik> OK
-    <lcc> how challenging is it to port mach?
-    <antrik> lcc: it requires good low-level knowledge of the platform in
-      question. having that, I guess it shouldn't be too hard to add the
-      necessary code in Mach...
-    <antrik> TBH I'm not sure how much knowledge of Mach internals is required
-    <braunr> the pmap module is the main thing to port
-    <antrik> braunr: well, sartakov seemed to have most trouble with the
-      scheduler when he attempted the ARM port...
-    <braunr> that's strange
-    <antrik> at least there was quite a long thread where he asked about how
-      task switching works in Mach
-    <braunr> ok
-    <braunr> that would be interesting
-    <braunr> i thought intereacting with the hardclock was enough
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-05
-
-    <braunr> antrik: don't you think HELL is worth a try for the GSoC btw ?
-    <antrik> braunr: definitely. I haven't managed to rework the project ideas
-      list at all this year... but it's something I wanted there for a long
-      time
-
-    <youngrw> just out of curiousity, what is HELL ?
-    <antrik> Hurd Emulation Layer on Linux
-    <braunr> youngrw: it can be described in several ways
-    <braunr> youngrw: basically, it's a mach interface on top of linux
-    <youngrw> implementing I suppose both the IPC mechanism and memory
-      management interface?
-    <mel__> youngrw: basically that. more generally: implement everything in
-      order to let Hurd run on that layer.
-    <antrik> well, it's slightly more complicated in my view... it's basically
-      anything that allows running a Hurdish environment on top of
-      GNU/Linux. it might be simply an implementation/emulation of Mach
-      mechanisms; but it also *might* work on a slightly higher level...
-    <youngrw> antrik: how might HELL operate at the slighty higher level like
-      you describe?
-    <antrik> let's call it low-level HELL and high-level HELL ;-)
-    <antrik> (a more descriptive name would be hurdenv... but HELL is so much
-      more catchy :-) )
-    <antrik> so, high-level HELL... basically, the idea would be not to emulate
-      the kernel facilities and run all the real Hurd servers; but instead to
-      use special servers implementing the Hurd interfaces, but on top of
-      standard Linux facilities
-    <antrik> hurdish programs could run in such an environment, as long as they
-      aren't too low-level
-    <antrik> I wonder whether generic RPC interfaces could be implemented with
-      some side channel tunneled though the ordinary Linux FS interfaces...
-    <antrik> so translators would be loaded as FUSE modules for example, but
-      could still present generic interfaces
-    <youngrw> That's actually pretty different from what I was expecting
-    <antrik> what were you expecting?
-    <youngrw> maybe something where the entire kernel interface is emulated by
-      a running user process, like a kind of virtual machine
-    <youngrw> I hope that makes sense--I may be using my words incorrectly.
-    <antrik> youngrw: that would be in the low-level HELL category
-    <youngrw> antrik: right; I had the misconception that the level was defined
-      by how it made use of the underlying linux system
-    <youngrw> and that different HELL designs would always implement the mach
-      interface
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-06
-
-    <braunr> antrik: i think we have diverging ideas about how to use linux for
-      the hurd
-    <braunr> antrik: what you seem to want are really emulation componants,
-      like e.g. ext2fs and pfinet actually using the linux implementation
-    <braunr> (correct me if i'm mistaken)
-    <braunr> whereas my project is to make linux behave as a mach clone
-    <antrik> braunr: as I said, I consider both variants -- either a high-level
-      HELL or a low-level HELL
-    <braunr> ok
-    <antrik> (or perhaps a mix of both)
-    <braunr> a mix would be best imho
-    <antrik> yeah, probably
-    <braunr> so we have the real hurd, the real mach interface, and a set of
-      native translators (e.g. ext2fs) along some emulating their functionality
-      using linux code (e.g. a hypothetical ext4fs)
-    <antrik> I don't think we would have emulation servers for individual Linux
-      filesystems. rather, a generic server interfacing with the Linux VFS
-      tree...
-    <braunr> ok
-
-    <antrik> braunr: BTW, I think I mentioned a couple of years ago that the
-      most realistic route towards a modern Mach in my opinion would be taking
-      a modern BSD (or Linux), and redo what the original Mach developers did
-      -- i.e. add the Mach-specific features, and drop the unnecessary UNIX
-      stuff
-    <braunr> antrik: :)
-    <braunr> we had discussions about it some time ago yes
-    <antrik> later I realised that it's better *not* to drop the UNIX
-      interfaces, but rather to keep them in parallel :-)
-    <braunr> antrik: for what purpose ?
-    <braunr> (i can imagine a few, but i'd like to know your idea)
-    <antrik> for the purpose of HELL :-)
-    <braunr> well hell would be the implementation, but what do you keep these
-      unix interfaces for ?
-    <antrik> i.e. people being able to play around with a Hurd environment
-      while staying with their existing system
-    <braunr> yes, i see
-    <braunr> i was considering doing that for development, yes
-    <braunr> uml first, and then i realized i wouldn't need it :)
-    <braunr> then i remembed netbsd and its syscall emulation layer
-    <antrik> also we might leverage some "foreign" userspace infrastructure
-      that way, such as udev
-    <antrik> (in the case of Linux that is... not sure whether NetBSD has
-      something similar at all ;-) )
-    <braunr> i'll have to check, it's been a long time since i've really used
-      it
-    <braunr> they must use a pure devfs instance now
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-23
-
-    <desrt> so crazy idea: would it be possible to have mach as a linux kernel
-      module?
-    <desrt> ie: some new binfmt type thing that could load mach binaries and
-      implement the required kernel ABI for them
-    <desrt> and then run the entire hurd under that....
-    <braunr> desrt: that's an idea, yes
-    <braunr> and not a new one
-    * desrt did a bit of googling but didn't find any information about it
-    <braunr> desrt: but why are you thinking of it ?
-    <braunr> we talked about it here, informally
-    <desrt> braunr: mostly because running hurd in a VM sucks
-    <desrt> if we had mach-via-linux, we'd have:
-    <desrt>  - no vm overhead
-    <desrt>  - no device virtualisation
-    <desrt>  - 64bit (physical at least) memory support
-    <desrt>  - SMP
-    <desrt>  - access to the linux drivers, natively
-    <desrt> and maybe some other nice things
-    <braunr> yes we talkbed about all this
-    <braunr> but i still consider that to be an incomplete solution
-    <desrt> i don't consider it to be running "the hurd" as your OS... but it
-      would be a nice solution for development and virtualisation
-    <braunr> we probably don't want to use drivers natively, since we want them
-      to run in their own address space, with their own namespace context
-    <braunr> it would, certainly
-    <braunr> but it would require a lot of effort anyway
-    <desrt> right