"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There were such people, I am/was one of those people. My personal
> feeling is that L4 is cool, but Mach is simply more feasible to get to
> a point where it would be useful and decent.
Then work on that. I don't think anyone is telling you wh
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:45:32 +0100,
Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 02:00 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> > Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I know,
> > the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The Hurd-on-L4
> > effor
> There were such people, I am/was one of those people. My
> personal feeling is that L4 is cool, but Mach is simply more
> feasible to get to a point where it would be useful and decent.
Then work on that. I don't think anyone is telling you what to do
here.
I'm not willing to i
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:27:56 +0100,
Alfred M Szmidt wrote:
>
> Marcus, your reply is a kneejerk reaction (I base this on your
> inablity to understand the meaning of `seems to be dead'). You
> yourself claimed that Hurd/FOO (FOO != Mach) would require a rewrite,
> and the only thing left from Hur
> Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I
> know, the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The
> Hurd-on-L4 efforts are an evaluation of a new design. Until such
> a design emerges as a viable alternative, there is nothing to
> decide.
That's th
I have a lot of elaborative technical arguments why I think that
the story is not so simple. This is however not the place to
present them.
This place is as good as any.
You should go into politics with the evading answers you are giving,
they have no substance other than: Do as you pl
>It depends on what the people doing the work think is the most
>profitable way to spend time. There were people excited about
>work on L4; if that is no longer true, then what?
>
> There were such people, I am/was one of those people. My
> personal feeling is that L
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>It depends on what the people doing the work think is the most
>profitable way to spend time. There were people excited about work
>on L4; if that is no longer true, then what?
>
> There were such people, I am/was one of those people.
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
Marcus made the effort of revisiting the original directions of the
Hurd's creators by trying to see how the Hurd could improve on this:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-10/msg00
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:10:09AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> You should go into politics with the evading answers you are giving,
> they have no substance other than: Do as you please, I do not care.
>
> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
As you very well know, the current
El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 09:05 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:45:32 +0100,
> Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 02:00 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> > > Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I know,
> >
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:40:04AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I
>> know, the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The
>> Hurd-on-L4 efforts are an evaluation of a new design. Until such
>> a design emerg
IMHO all the time invested in microkernel investigation (no matter if
it's on Mach/Hurd or L4/EROS/.../Hurd) is incredibly valuable, even if
it _could_ (could != will) be ditched someday.
This is not a microkernel investigation, it is about two different
code bases. One code base that ex
> You should go into politics with the evading answers you are
> giving, they have no substance other than: Do as you please, I do
> not care.
>
> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
As you very well know, the current situation is that Mach is
considered unsuit
> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
Marcus made the effort of revisiting the original directions of the
Hurd's creators by trying to see how the Hurd could improve on
this:
No, he made the effort of revisiting the Hurd on L4, and maybe
changing L4 to something else.
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, he made the effort of revisiting the Hurd on L4, and maybe
> changing L4 to something else. I am talking about the Hurd project,
> not a specific port.
I was referring to the fact that Marcus revisited "Towards a New
Strategy of OS Design", t
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:15:30 +0100,
Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've searched many times through the mailing lists, and I didn't found
> a complete and rational discussion about the design issues of Mach/Hurd.
> Perhaps could be a good idea to start such discussion now, probably
> bot
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 03:00:15PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> You should go into politics with the evading answers you are
>> giving, they have no substance other than: Do as you please, I do
>> not care.
>>
>> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
>
>A
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People are confused where to spend their time and have become more so
> now that Hurd/L4 might not even be a viable choice. Should time be
> spent on the currently working Hurd/Mach, should it be spent on the
> non-existant Hurd/L4, or should it be
What we need is people that do what they want to do.
That is what people have been doing for the past 10 years, and we are
still stuck at the same spot. And now we have two different code
bases, with nothing in common, with the possibility of having a third
code base that doesn't even exist ye
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not willing to invest my spare time in something that might never
> be used again (Hurd/Mach?), nor am I willing to invest my spare time
> in something that will never see day light (Hurd/L4?). And that
> nobody is telling me, a person who has
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You make it sound as the choice is trivial, yet you write in a mail
> that is only a few minutes older:
>
>Work on the L4 codebase is valuable in my opinion; work on the Mach
>codebase is valuable. They are both valuable in different ways,
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
A good rule of thumb in volunteer work is the following:
When you start thinking to yourself that it's frustrating that nobody
is doing X, it's to to pitch in and start doing X.
So why don't yo
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What we need is people that do what they want to do.
>
> That is what people have been doing for the past 10 years, and we are
> still stuck at the same spot. And now we have two different code
> bases, with nothing in common, with the possibili
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:53:13PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:15:30 +0100,
> Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've searched many times through the mailing lists, and I didn't found
> > a complete and rational discussion about the design issues of Mach/Hurd.
>
If you have good arguments to back up that performance will be
acceptable on Mach, please share them with us.
First define what is `acceptable'. Acceptable in my book is 2x slower
than Linux. This is should be quite easy to achive in Mach using
various optimisations.
And once again, this
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For problems with the Hurd passive translator design:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-10/msg00081.html
I would say in response to this that the only problem Marcus really
identifies here is that you can escape chroot jails with pas
At Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:02:45 +0100,
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marcus made a promise to Jeff Bailey that the Hurd on L4 would be runnable
> > last year.
>
> Marcus told you this day that he doesn't like it if you are claiming that he
> said things, because you seem to have a habit of
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And once again, this is not what I asked. I asked what the hell the
> Hurd is.
What would you do with the answer to this question?
What do you think the answer to this question is?
___
Bug-hurd ma
> Which is immensly useful for setting a direction...
A good rule of thumb in volunteer work is the following:
When you start thinking to yourself that it's frustrating that
nobody is doing X, it's to to pitch in and start doing X.
So why don't you work on setting a direction?
Th
> You make it sound as the choice is trivial, yet you write in a
> mail that is only a few minutes older:
>
>Work on the L4 codebase is valuable in my opinion; work on the
>Mach codebase is valuable. They are both valuable in
>different ways, and I think that there is
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That rule of thumb works very well for specific features, bugs etc, it
> does not work for completley different codebases since you can end up
> two a bazillion codebases, none of which might be usable.
Huh? The rule of thumb works perfectly. I
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You make it sound as the choice is trivial, yet you write in a
>> mail that is only a few minutes older:
>>
>>Work on the L4 codebase is valuable in my opinion; work on the
>>Mach codebase is valuable. They are both va
> I'm not willing to invest my spare time in something that might
> never be used again (Hurd/Mach?), nor am I willing to invest my
> spare time in something that will never see day light (Hurd/L4?).
> And that nobody is telling me, a person who has been around for a
> while, what th
> And once again, this is not what I asked. I asked what the hell
> the Hurd is.
What would you do with the answer to this question?
I'd hack some more.
What do you think the answer to this question is?
If I knew, then I wouldn't be here bitching about it now would I? :-)
I'm not t
> That rule of thumb works very well for specific features, bugs
> etc, it does not work for completley different codebases since
> you can end up two a bazillion codebases, none of which might be
> usable.
Huh? The rule of thumb works perfectly. I didn't say just start
coding,
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:44:18 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For problems with the Hurd passive translator design:
> >
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-10/msg00081.html
>
> I would say in response to this that the only pr
At Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:07:50 +0100,
Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't think that the IBM case is applicable for us,
> since their objetives are far different from ours.
You think so? Surely, they had a strong priority on multiple
personalities, while we only have
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And once again, this is not what I asked. I asked what the hell
>> the Hurd is.
>
>What would you do with the answer to this question?
>
> I'd hack some more.
You don't seem to see that the question "which branch succeeds" is a
direc
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The active translator problem seems serious to me. Without any
> guarantee about the implementation of a service, you can not know what
> it does. This means that you must be prepared for any malicious
> behaviour, including: no response (stalling t
>> And once again, this is not what I asked. I asked what the
>> hell the Hurd is.
>
>What would you do with the answer to this question?
>
> I'd hack some more.
You don't seem to see that the question "which branch succeeds" is
a direct consequence of which on
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:44:18 -0800,
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > For problems with the Hurd passive translator design:
>> >
>> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-10/msg00081.ht
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The active translator problem seems serious to me. Without any
> guarantee about the implementation of a service, you can not know what
> it does. This means that you must be prepared for any malicious
> behaviour, including: no response (stalling t
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hate competition. It will only hurt, and the gain will be minimal
> compared to the parties working hand in hand. What you are asking for
> is a split, something that I atleast do not want to see.
Um, I'm not asking for anything.
I think that
El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 20:32 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> At Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:07:50 +0100,
> Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, I don't think that the IBM case is applicable for us,
> > since their objetives are far different from ours.
>
> You think so? Sur
I think that some really productive work would be anything that
reduces the Mach-dependence of the existing code base. Abstracting
away Mach-specific elements would be a really really good thing,
valuable work whatever happens, that anyone could start on right
now.
Not knowing that
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So we should wait another 5? 10? 20 years? before someone makes a
> solid decision and one decides that we should just throw away a bunch
> of years worth of work? If anything, that is what is not productive,
> it is also not productive to work on
> So we should wait another 5? 10? 20 years? before someone makes a
> solid decision and one decides that we should just throw away a bunch
> of years worth of work? If anything, that is what is not productive,
> it is also not productive to work on two code bases at the same time.
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your students have it easier, they know what to work on: the paper on
> a specific topic. That is a specific goal, `the Hurd' has no such
> goal, is it Hurd/Mach, Hurd/L4 or what? You say that you don't know,
> I don't know. What do you tell a st
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:45:01 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is why in FUSE, users don't see the user filesystems of other
> > users. I am afraid that given the seriousness of the problem, this is
> > the only sane option. Only with a broa
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:22:33 +0100,
Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 20:32 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
>
> We don't know (since the papers are not so technical, and we can't look
> into the code) in deep what they do to Mach or how they implemented the
>
>
> Note that some version of L4 consumed 4 TLB entries for one IPC: 2
> that were the same for every kernel interrupt. 1 for the source
> thread. 1 for the destination thread. It is hard to do better than
Using a bigger ('super') page the kernel interrupt stuff can be mapped
using only 1 TLB
I'm not going to start telling people to stop work on some other
project.
The project is the Hurd. You seem to think that I am speaking about
seperate projects, like if one would compare GNU Emacs vs. Lucid
Emacs. I'm talking about a specific direction _within_ the project,
like should Ema
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, it isn't. It is more like asking a researcher that the 10 years
> he spent on solving a specific problem are completely useless because
> the professor was unable to show the researcher what he should be
> working on, since the researcher was
Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no business
calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
I find your attitude disgusting.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@
El jue, 10-11-2005 a las 00:27 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:22:33 +0100,
> Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 20:32 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> >
> > We don't know (since the papers are not so technical, and we can't look
> No, it isn't. It is more like asking a researcher that the 10
> years he spent on solving a specific problem are completely
> useless because the professor was unable to show the researcher
> what he should be working on, since the researcher was told `work
> on what you consider
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the Hurd is a concrete question, you have three choices,
> Hurd/Mach, Hurd/L4 or Hurd/something-else.
No, it is a paradigmatic example of a vague abstract question, akin to
asking "What is Unix"?
> I am not asking what I should work on,
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
> idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no business
> calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
This is not acceptible. Your frustration at Marcus is not
> What is the Hurd is a concrete question, you have three choices,
> Hurd/Mach, Hurd/L4 or Hurd/something-else.
No, it is a paradigmatic example of a vague abstract question, akin
to asking "What is Unix"?
Unix is a operating system developed by Bell labs. That is quite
concrete.
> Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
> idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no
> business calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
This is not acceptible. Your frustration at Marcus is not an
excuse for ordering people arou
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is the Hurd is a concrete question, you have three choices,
>> Hurd/Mach, Hurd/L4 or Hurd/something-else.
>
>No, it is a paradigmatic example of a vague abstract question, akin
>to asking "What is Unix"?
>
> Unix is a operatin
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It isn't acceptable for calling my I was trying to do for a hostile,
> illegal, and a takover by force. I gave enough of a warning to
> people, you could have said `no', and I would have held of, that is
> not force. If this `takeover' was done b
> It isn't acceptable for calling my I was trying to do for a
> hostile, illegal, and a takover by force. I gave enough of a
> warning to people, you could have said `no', and I would have
> held of, that is not force. If this `takeover' was done by
> force, then I would have commi
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It isn't acceptable for calling my I was trying to do for a
>> hostile, illegal, and a takover by force. I gave enough of a
>> warning to people, you could have said `no', and I would have
>> held of, that is not force. If this `
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
> idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no business
> calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
What did Marcus tag?
Marcus, can you find a name for the t
> Unix is a operating system developed by Bell labs. That is quite
> concrete.
Huh? Is Unix BSD, or is it System V? Which?! Or is it SCO?
UNIX V6 for example, but you knew that...
> You have gone from `work on what you want', to `there is no
> direction', and now you say `will
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unix is a operating system developed by Bell labs. That is quite
>> concrete.
>
>Huh? Is Unix BSD, or is it System V? Which?! Or is it SCO?
>
> UNIX V6 for example, but you knew that...
It is as if you are not listening still.
Un
> Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
> idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no
> business calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
What did Marcus tag?
The GNU Mach tree.
Marcus, can you find a name for the tag which is le
Your tone has made this even harder; instead of asking questions,
you have berated me for not knowing the answer to a question that
simply *has no* answer.
The only one berating anyone is you with your constant accusations
towards me. You can't seem to send a single message without such
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Marcus, I'm not even sure how to talk to you. Just remove that
>> idiotic tag at once (unless I did it right). You have no
>> business calling what I am doing illegal, by force or sudden.
>
>What did Marcus tag?
>
> The GNU Mach
71 matches
Mail list logo
