On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:19 AM, massimo s. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sergiu Ivanov ha scritto: > > It might be interesting to you, that it's a trial to introduce the > > translators > > concept to NetBSD and the final goal is to provide binary > > compatibility with > > GNUMach to be able to use the Hurd on top of the NetBSD kernel. > > In case you want to ask the question "Why on a monolithic kernel?", > > the answer > > is that translators seem a cool thing even there. > > > > Some things already work (but they're not yet integrated and > > stable), you can > > check the status on: > > http://netbsd-soc.sourceforge.nAh, I see. > > et/projects/hurdt/ < > http://netbsd-soc.sourceforge.net/projects/hurdt/> > > > > > > Thank you for the information :-) I heard something about this, but I > > never read anything on this matter. I wonder whether Hurd community > > should feel happy about translators on NetBSD or not... > > I think it should. Being a user, for me it means the Hurd running on a > *production-ready kernel*. > Sound. Up-to-date drivers. Architectures support. It is wonderful news. > Well, I wonder whether porting Hurd to NetBSD kernel would take less effort than it should have taken to port it to L4 or Coyotos. Still, both attempts failed, and I am strongly inclined to think that it is just infeasible (or near infeasible) to port the Hurd on a *monolithic* kernel, though you had better ask Hurd guys smarter than me. And I wonder -does it mean that a top-down approach can be taken to the > microkernel? Is it conceivable to start from the NetBSD monolithic, and > than "modularize" it piece by piece, until there is a BSDish > microkernel, NetBSD-derived but standalone drivers, and the Hurd? > I don't know whether there are specific limitations which would not allow to so this on NetBSD kernel, but, obviously, such an operation would mean *a lot* of work and I'd doubt that devising a brand new microkernel will take much more :-) Regards, scolobb
