Re: Changing from L4 to something else...

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:55:24 +0200,
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Friday 28 October 2005 02:07 pm, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > nice to see you around ;)
> 
> You know, I was the initiator of porting Hurd to L4. So I have a strong 
> incentive to annoy you. ;)

Yes, I remember very well that you started this.  I know who I can blame :)
 
And of course if you feel that this topic becomes increasingly
inappropriate for this list, we can create a different list for such
discussions.  hurd-discuss, for example.

> > The other reason I am interested is that this is a compelling reason
> > to build yet another operating system.  And we really need a
> > compelling reason, as on just about any other ground, we will not be
> > able to compete successfully with other systems like GNU/Linux, either
> > because we don't have the resources or there is zero interest in it
> > (because GNU/Linux is "good enough" or, *shudder* because Windows is
> > "good enough").
> 
> Actually, I don't care about this very much. I share the same vision as RMS 
> in 
> this respect: the goal of Free Software is not the share. But I don't intend 
> to impose this on you. If you can be more efficient with this view, I have no 
> reason to stop it.

I was not very clear, but I am not talking about market share here.  I
also need a compelling reason for _me_ to write an operating system.

> > If we have resource accountability, we give a user a certain amount of
> > resources, and then we don't care anymore.  In fact, it makes sense
> > then to not let the system administrator see what processes I run, how
> > much memory they use, etc.  The resource accountabiliy can work at a
> > trust domain level.  Root doesn't care if I have 2 tasks using each 10
> > MB, or one task using 1 MB and one using 19 MB, as long as I don't
> > exceed my limit of 20 MB.
> 
> As for the memory, I agree. But some resources are exclusive in nature. For 
> example, if one starts a player with a horrible music on your computer, what 
> do you want to do? One way is to mute the speaker. But, generally speaking, 
> it is nicer to be able to kill it, isn't it?

I am not sure I understand your example.  If the user started a
program that plays bad music, he can kill this program of course.  The
user should have total control over the resources the user owns.  And
he should have all the information he needs to make informed
decisions.

If the speakers are not on the user's desk, he shouldn't have a
capability to activate them :)
 
> > I do.  But here is another twist: I won't start an implementation
> > before I don't have a realistic vision of what we are implementing.
> 
> I leave this kind of decision to you. After all, you are the maintainer, and 
> I 
> am a kind of person who respects maintainership.

D'oh!  That's the worst reason ever to not criticize what I am doing.

But here is my suggestion: If you want to become co-maintainer of the
Hurd, I will happily pull all strings I have to make it happen, and
promise that I won't interfere with what you want to do.

Or, if it helps, I can temporarily step down from co-maintenance so
that you can tell me your opinion :)

Thanks,
Marcus