To briefly explain what Phil says: Forget about Linux and its shells,
tools, etc. We only take the linux KERNEL, not a whole distribution.
Le 14/3/2005, "Phil Frost" <indigo@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:54:19AM +0000, Charles Goodwin wrote:
>> From a birds-eye-spectator-view of things, I'd have to say I found the
>> EROS idea more attractive. EROS seems more aligned with the goals of
>> Uuu and it also is much less exposed which is both a good and a bad
>> thing. (Good in that it would make Uuu not yet-another-linux-variation
>> and bad in that it's less tested.) However, what is attractive and what
>> is practical are frequently different things.
>>
>> Well, that's yet another opinion for you to digest. *shrugs*
>>
>> - Charlie
>
>Uuu is not a linux variant. It's an OS that can run _on_ linux, and
>hopefully, any other posix compliant system. How the hardware is
>accessed, be it by 'in' and 'out' instructions, or by standard C
>functions, is irrelevant at all but the lowest layers. The point of
>using posix is to have a stable, mature, easilly accessible, and widely
>available platform for Uuu to run. EROS might be stable, but I would
>venture a guess that it's driver support is nowhere near that of linux
>or darwin, and it is definately not as available.
>
>I did not think that the hardest part of porting uuu to posix would be
>explaining the concept. The problem is some people are stuck on this
>hierarchy:
>
> hardware
> |
> OS
> |
> +----+----+----+----+
> | | | | |
> app app app app application
> |
> +--+--+
> f f functions
>
>When really the only hierarchy we are forced to use is this:
>
> hardware
> |
> program
>
>A CPU doesn't know there is an OS, which runs applications, which are
>composed of functions. It just knows there is a program to run, composed
>of a sequence of instructions. How we name and arrange parts of the
>program is totally irrelevant to what the computer has been programmed
>to do.
>
>An OS when properly designed does not require that to access the disk
>controller it must manipulate IO ports around 0x1f0 and 0x3f6. It could
>just as well use any other interface, such as a posix compliant C
>library, which calls linux syscalls, which manipulates IO ports. This is
>not unlikely running Uuu directly on hardware that is not IBM PC
>compatible, where the instructions to access the disk controller might
>be entirely different, or there might be a different type of controller.
>
>The goal is to eventually have Uuu running directly on hardware for best
>performance. Using "posix" as "hardware" allows development to skip
>boring driver development that doesn't really contribute anything new to
>the OS scene. Furthermore, linux is the platform used by most uuu
>developers, and those who do not have linux have access to a posix
>system as cygwin on windows or darwin on mac. This makes development
>many times faster since there is no rebooting involved.
>
>An EROS port is certainly welcome if someone wishes to try it. Indeed it
>does offer an orthogonal persistence mechanism which could be useful for
>Unununium. However, it is neither our final goal, nor does it satify the
>requirement of device driver support nor is it as accessible.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Uuu-devel mailing list
>Uuu-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://unununium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uuu-devel
>
>
|
