gha...@gmail.com said:
> In any case, while I can imagine the client-side and monitoring code running
> through the shim, how likely is it that Gary and Hal (and Dr Mills) PLL code
> would survive being machine-translated to a non-POSIX kernel?
There are 2 interesting parts to the kernel. The im
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 23:39:31 -0400
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
>
> > Now that Windows is supposedly able to run Linux binaries, it seems
> > to me we should be able to discard the Windows port cruft.
>
> Uh, I never saw that. Citation
Ok
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:58 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Eric S. Raymond :
> > > Remove it. Carefully. Try not to cackle maniacally too much while you
> do.
> >
> > Da, Fearless Leader!
>
> Holding off on this while you and Joel argue out the pros and cons.
> --
> http://www.c
Eric S. Raymond :
> > Remove it. Carefully. Try not to cackle maniacally too much while you do.
>
> Da, Fearless Leader!
Holding off on this while you and Joel argue out the pros and cons.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
Mark Atwood :
> Simplifying those bad spots is more important than keeping code we don't
> know works in an OS that nobody can recommend as a good time server.
That was my take, pretty exactly.
I have to note, however, that some of this cruft could *theoretically* be
useful in client mode, if it
Removing the support is a big mistake.
The ability for Windows to run Linux binaries is only for Windows 10 and
hasn't shipped yet. According to this article, it is also an optional
feature.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-and-bash-arrive-on-windows-10/
That means that 100% of Windows system
Thanks for the update.
Simplifying those bad spots is more important than keeping code we don't
know works in an OS that nobody can recommend as a good time server.
Remove it. Carefully. Try not to cackle maniacally too much while you do.
..m
On Sat, May 14, 2016, 4:26 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote
Mark Atwood :
> it sounds like there is no cruft getting in the way of complexity
> headaround or reduction. leave it be.
Unfortunately, your premise is not correct; Hal's report was
incomplete. There are substantial amounts of Windows cruft in some of
the trickiest places outside the port direc
Hal Murray :
> They are essentially abandoned off to the side. They aren't getting in the
> way other than clutter and false hits if you use grep -r.
Those directories are, but there's a fair anount of intrusive stuff in headers
and right in the middle of the network-plumbing hairball.
--
Mark Atwood :
> How much window porting cruft is there?
7.5KLOC in 88 files, about half of which are under libisc/win32 and
ports/winnt. That's actually quite a lot, about 1 in 12 lines of the
entire codebase. Hal undercounted because he wasn't looking outside
those directories.
SYS_WINNT is th
it sounds like there is no cruft getting in the way of complexity
headaround or reduction. leave it be.
On Fri, May 13, 2016, 9:12 PM Hal Murray wrote:
> > How much window porting cruft is there?
>
> ports/winnt and libisc/win32
>
> They are essentially abandoned off to the side. They aren't g
> How much window porting cruft is there?
ports/winnt and libisc/win32
They are essentially abandoned off to the side. They aren't getting in the
way other than clutter and false hits if you use grep -r.
The build stuff gets two hits on "Windows", both in comments and a few hits
on "win32" w
Yo Eric!
On Fri, 13 May 2016 23:39:31 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Now that Windows is supposedly able to run Linux binaries, it seems
> to me we should be able to discard the Windows port cruft.
Uh, I never saw that. Citation please?
Most people I have talked to said it did not work yet.
How much window porting cruft is there?
I would like to see it run. I'm going to be at OSCON next week, and will
have a conversation with one of the MSFT people who implemented the the
syscall shim,
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:39 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Now that Windows is supposedly able to
Now that Windows is supposedly able to run Linux binaries, it seems to me
we should be able to discard the Windows port cruft.
Yes, there are probably glitches in their implementation. So be it: by
the time we're under any real pressure to ship a Windows port (which
might be never) I think there a
15 matches
Mail list logo
