To start my text, I wanna expose that I am not an Operating System Designer, I am not an "native speaker" of C, C++, Lisp or other programming language. But I have a fuckin brain that is saing to me that this discussion is more a personal than techinical discussion.
The first point that we have to think about is that we are creating a FREE operating system, this mean that, if we need, we CAN adapt it (this is what the first freedom say). So, the argue that we will lose many parts of the current base of free softwares is wrong. Most of the softwares are not very POSIX dependent and can be addapted. AMS said that EMACS is a example that software that could be problematic to port to this new design, but on http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/ has systems that are not implementations of POSIX, like MS DOS. I am not able to see how hard is implement a layer (or an emulator) to support legacy POSIX programs on the detriment of a POSIX system that has almost no techinical advantage. I am not saying that he is wrong, but I am not undertanding Alfred's point of view. The Idea of an new Design isn't very documented yet, but I am expect that they will not reinvent the wheel, I am sure that they will in a different way, but I do not see why all coreutils (for example) will be lost. Sometimes we need a command line interface to do things faster. All that I want is know what are the advantages of a real POSIX system and the advantages of a new Design with a POSIX Layer/emulator, and why there is no fairplay in this debate. -- leonardolopespereira at gmail.com GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) ID da chave: 83E8AFBF | servidor: keys.indymedia.org gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys 83E8AFBF
pgpk44Z9YaVcB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
