On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 4:38 AM Xiang Xiao wrote: > musl is designed to work exclusively with Linux and then there is no OS > abstraction layer. So it's hard to adapt musl to other OS. > Alan asks a good question: what benefit do you want to get from replacing > NuttX' libc with musl?
Just my 2 cents as BSD user (FreeBSD to be exact) so please stay cool :-) Yes there are lots of "Open-Source" solutions that works only on Linux by design. Some people do this because of ignorance, some people do it on purpose. Life would be simpler when it has "Linux-Only" sticker on top just to know what to avoid :-) Linux was always known to be "most-self-incomatible-system-ever" but gets more and more away from Unix world nowadays into "constant change" "temporary solution" world. I don't know musl but it seems to be yet another example of Linux-Only solution (to add Docker, SystemD and all dependent programs). I am porting lots of Open-Source applications and libraries to BSD and I know the problem pretty well. It goes wrong direction with applause of the masses. Kind of Closed-Open-Source. People think that Open-Source is Linux, but Linux is only small part of the Open-Source world. Because Linux starts to live in its own world, there will be more and more problems of this kind. I was using Linux since 2.0.36 and I stopped using around 2.4.11 when kernel API started changing with every minor release. This is clearly "enforced changes ideology" in practice. You cannot build anything solid on non solid fundaments. BSD is a good proving grounds for well designed portable Open-Source. If you make something here it will still work in two years ;-) Give it a try :-) https://www.freebsd.org/ - versatile OS for Embedded, Desktop, Server (supports ZFS, RISC-V, etc). https://nomadbsd.org/ - USB drive portable version of FreeBSD. https://www.openbsd.org/ - most secure OS ever. -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
