On Monday, July 26, 2021 05:34 PM IST, "Udo Grabowski (IMK)" <udo.grabow...@kit.edu> wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 13:35, mayur...@kathe.in wrote: > > cross-posting since i accidentally addressed this one to omnios-discuss the > > first time. sorry. > > > > i have noticed a trend amongst communities oriented towards building open > > source unix-like operating systems; the project starts off as being quite > > lean, but then acquires a lot of fat due to dependence on the non-core > > toolkit. > > > > from the illumos perspective, i would say, "core" would be the kernel + > > userland, all written using a combination of ansi-c and the system default > > shell (korn). > > > > afaik, 'ips' is built using python which supposedly coordinates between > > minisat (written in ansi-c), the userland and some mechanism to get files > > off the network. > > i am not yet clear about how 'ips' works, and i am working at overcoming > > that by consulting "till wegmueller" who has written a couple of > > implementations of 'ips' using different programming languages (it think; > > go and rust), but, it would be worthwhile to get a broader input from those > > in the community who were from "sun microsystems" as to why python was > > chosen over ksh93. > > > > also, after an email thread on omnios-disucss, it has been revealed that > > there are a bunch of tools on the base system which depend of 'gnu' bash, > > is there any way that could be rectified? or is that issue only within > > omnios and not addressable by the illumos community at large? > > > > is there any way the illumos community could get interested in shedding > > it's fat even at the userland level? > > > > Even if many here agree that, e.g., bash (or gnu tools in general) is > nothing we really want here, you cannot ignore its dominance elsewhere, > especially in the Linux domain where most of the software we like to > provide also is targeted at nowadays. So if you want to have the ability > to ever compile anything coming from upstream, or even enable your users > to compile other software they download for themselves, you have to > provide all that "fat" if you don't want to constantly rewrite what > you've pulled. Whining to upstream about that will do nothing, you will > be simply ignored... That's the reality today, you have to cope with > that. > > The same applies (even more) for python. And ksh93 has been obsoleted > in Linux, so guess what happens next in the foreseeable future... > > If you don't want to be left completely isolated quickly, you have to > adapt. udo, your logic is flawed. if you think that just because ksh93 being obsoleted under linux should be reason enough to move to some other tool like python, then going by that rationale, we should all be moving our bases over from illumos to linux, yeah right, if you don't want to be left completely isolated quickly, you have to adapt! ksh93 is the default (and in some cases, the only) shell under real unix systems (read 'aix', solaris and hp-ux). ksh93 is still being well maintained by linux companies around opensuse and redhat and there's a thriving community around it at https://github.com/ksh93/ksh/ just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. what i can't understand is the fascination people from our trade have to constantly move to newer, fancier, shinier programming systems/languages, especially when what exists is perfectly good if used by following the philosophy of that environment. i noticed a marked focus from the developers of the core system to eliminate code which isn't being used, or can't be used, or won't be used anymore (e.g. sparc support), but at the same time i am appalled by the decisions taken by certain illumos distributions (read omniosce) toward not maintaining leanness (they even use bash as the root shell). ------------------------------------------ illumos: illumos-discuss Permalink: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/T8b661f3611aef44c-M03fab5d01f62353e34ecbc4b Delivery options: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/subscription
