Interesting; sounds a bit like a cross between { Debian/GNU NetBSD, Debian/GNU
kFreeBSD } and
Bluewall { http://bluewall.es.gnu.org/ }.
Sounds like it could be fantastic for an OS design course; also, as you say,
good for stable,
heterogenous environments.
Two problems:
* different kernel-based features { zones vs other solutions on other OSs, zfs
not (yet?) native
on Linux, dtrace only on two of those so far, networking and storage
management differences, ... };
how do you come up with as much as possible a unified approach to
documentation and to learning
the alternatives?
* base system freeze will eventually result in only running on museum hardware;
no new drivers
or features (at least none that don't backport with little or no changes to
the rest of the
respective kernel tree, unless you're compromising your other goals). Also,
the evolving userland
will eventually get to where it really wants features that the unevolving
kernels won't have. Even
for a course curriculum, keeping the kernels unevolving means it will
eventually be relegated to
a _history_ of OS design course.
The cooperation sounds interesting and possibly very worthwhile, although given
the possibility of
what amount to planned obsolescence (2nd point above), I wonder if there would
be enough
interest to achieve much there. Similar point on the promotion of heterogenous
environments.
A long, slow kernel update cycle (with snapshots of the then current kernels
being used as a
starting point only once the first multi-kernel distro is out and stable) might
address the
obsolescence issue, while still honoring the other concerns. It would also
ensure that the
opportunity for improving cooperation would be in depth and open-ended.
Given that it's available now, I wonder if anyone has thought of putting
OpenSolaris's SVR4 lineage
userland on top of a *BSD or Linux kernel; I think I recall seeing something
along those lines, but
can't think just now of how to search for it. As such, orthogonality seems to
call for at least
the consideration of alternative user lands that could run pretty much equally
on all four kernels.
I think that if you could engage as many Austin Group
(http://www.opengroup.org/austin/)
participants as possible, you could at once work for more uniform standards
compliance among
heterogenous implementations, and yet also for more dynamism (albeit the
responsible sort) in
the standards process itself.
How's that for an initial comment? :-)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
