Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM, b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? I wonder in particular if: - there are Linux systems using the BSD userlands - there are Linux systems using completely non-standard userlands... let's say, non-Unix tools on top of a Linux kernel. Only thing I can think about is (maybe) embedded systems or things using busybox, but in the latter case just imitating gnu or bsd userlands. Not that I have a real purpose for such a bizarre beast, I'm just curious. m. A while back I read something about people using a LLVM toolchain. I think it still includes gcc, but it was interesting (and if I remember correctly, it was attempted with gentoo). If I could just find the link? ahah http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1431222 Don't know if that's really what you're asking. Just ignore me Regards Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM, b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? I wonder in particular if: - there are Linux systems using the BSD userlands - there are Linux systems using completely non-standard userlands... let's say, non-Unix tools on top of a Linux kernel. Only thing I can think about is (maybe) embedded systems or things using busybox, but in the latter case just imitating gnu or bsd userlands. Not that I have a real purpose for such a bizarre beast, I'm just curious. m. A while back I read something about people using a LLVM toolchain. I think it still includes gcc, but it was interesting (and if I remember correctly, it was attempted with gentoo). If I could just find the link? ahah http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1431222 Don't know if that's really what you're asking. Just ignore me Regards Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: there are many shells. sh, bash, bsh. korn, csh, zsh, dash, tcsh, why make a new one, if you can do incredible stuff with zsh? A shell is not so easy to create. I understand. I wondered if *conceptually new* shells were present.That's why I thought about the Powershell, as an example. A new kernel is not so hard to do. The problem are the drivers - and all the quirks. It is one thing to write a little task scheduler for your little pet project, but if it crashs constantly it becomes a bitch to fight through all the errata. But at the beginning a simple kernel is much easier to do than stuff that runs on it (simple is the important work. A non-simple kernel is very hard). Well, I've never done kernel programming, but I have always been under the impression it is among the hardest programming stuff you can do, even if only for the hardware knowledge and debugging troubles it gives... Another thing are libcs. A libc is a bitch. Luckily there is a whole bunch to choose from. glibc, bsd's libc, uclibc, dietlibc, ... so why re-invent the wheel? For libc, yes, I agree. Or look at X. X is horrible. A convoluted mess of grown cruft and standards to hold the pile together. But where is the replacement? Fiasco/Berlin? failed. Y-window? failed. Because X works good enough. And if you aren't writing toolkits or apps using xlib directly, you don't need to care about most of the stuff. So hobbyist concentrate on the easy stuff - and a userland is not easy. Userland is not boring - it is very hard. And the best userland doesn't help you if no 3rd party software runs on it. But projects like Haiku and ReactOS created also most of userland from scratch, not only the kernels. They had the advantage of taking inspiration from existing OSes but they actually did the implementation. Also, SkyOS or Syllable did it, AFAIK. So I can rephrase my question as those two: Why didn't those projects use the Linux kernel? Are there similar projects using the Linux kernel? m.
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Montag, 11. August 2008, b.n. wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: there are many shells. sh, bash, bsh. korn, csh, zsh, dash, tcsh, why make a new one, if you can do incredible stuff with zsh? A shell is not so easy to create. I understand. I wondered if *conceptually new* shells were present.That's why I thought about the Powershell, as an example. look up zsh. You can do stuff with that shell that make the powershell look like a child's toy. A new kernel is not so hard to do. The problem are the drivers - and all the quirks. It is one thing to write a little task scheduler for your little pet project, but if it crashs constantly it becomes a bitch to fight through all the errata. But at the beginning a simple kernel is much easier to do than stuff that runs on it (simple is the important work. A non-simple kernel is very hard). Well, I've never done kernel programming, but I have always been under the impression it is among the hardest programming stuff you can do, even if only for the hardware knowledge and debugging troubles it gives... a 'real' kernel is hard, but a little hobbyist kernel is not that hard to do. Another thing are libcs. A libc is a bitch. Luckily there is a whole bunch to choose from. glibc, bsd's libc, uclibc, dietlibc, ... so why re-invent the wheel? For libc, yes, I agree. But projects like Haiku and ReactOS created also most of userland from scratch, not only the kernels. reactos tries to copy windows - so it will be using the windows userland. haiku tries to be beos - it is will be able to run beos apps. Also some posix- apps run on it. They had the advantage of taking inspiration from existing OSes but they actually did the implementation. Also, SkyOS or Syllable did it, AFAIK. and how many apps run on skyos or syllabe? So I can rephrase my question as those two: Why didn't those projects use the Linux kernel? because they wanted to do something different.
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: But projects like Haiku and ReactOS created also most of userland from scratch, not only the kernels. reactos tries to copy windows - so it will be using the windows userland. haiku tries to be beos - it is will be able to run beos apps. Also some posix- apps run on it. In the meaning of windows and beos applications, yes. However it is not like ReactOS uses the windows graphic shell. It has its own windows-like graphic shell. When I talk about userland, here, I mean more the core stuff, like coreutils, graphics and the like. They had the advantage of taking inspiration from existing OSes but they actually did the implementation. Also, SkyOS or Syllable did it, AFAIK. and how many apps run on skyos or syllabe? Few, indeed, but that's irrelevant in this context. They exist. So I can rephrase my question as those two: Why didn't those projects use the Linux kernel? because they wanted to do something different. Yes, very probably. However it's a kind of decision I don't really understand... using a Linux or BSD as the underlying kernel would give you immediately tons of drivers and stuff, even if you want to rewrite most of other utilities from scratch. Probably I don't get it because I'm not an OS programmer geek. :) m.
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Dienstag, 12. August 2008, b.n. wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: So I can rephrase my question as those two: Why didn't those projects use the Linux kernel? because they wanted to do something different. Yes, very probably. However it's a kind of decision I don't really understand... using a Linux or BSD as the underlying kernel would give you immediately tons of drivers and stuff, even if you want to rewrite most of other utilities from scratch. Probably I don't get it because I'm not an OS programmer geek. :) some people build their own bikes or boats despite the fact that you can choose between tons of bikes and boats. ;)
[gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? I wonder in particular if: - there are Linux systems using the BSD userlands - there are Linux systems using completely non-standard userlands... let's say, non-Unix tools on top of a Linux kernel. Only thing I can think about is (maybe) embedded systems or things using busybox, but in the latter case just imitating gnu or bsd userlands. Not that I have a real purpose for such a bizarre beast, I'm just curious. m.
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
b.n. schrieb: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? I wonder in particular if: - there are Linux systems using the BSD userlands - there are Linux systems using completely non-standard userlands... let's say, non-Unix tools on top of a Linux kernel. Only thing I can think about is (maybe) embedded systems or things using busybox, but in the latter case just imitating gnu or bsd userlands. Not that I have a real purpose for such a bizarre beast, I'm just curious. m. Damn Small Linux and Damn Small Linux Not (50MB and ~100MB total size, respectively) use busybox. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 b.n. wrote: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? I wonder in particular if: - there are Linux systems using the BSD userlands - there are Linux systems using completely non-standard userlands... let's say, non-Unix tools on top of a Linux kernel. Only thing I can think about is (maybe) embedded systems or things using busybox, but in the latter case just imitating gnu or bsd userlands. Not that I have a real purpose for such a bizarre beast, I'm just curious. m. You might possibly be missing one of the most basic (in organization) differences between any BSD and any Linux is that BSD's are all built and packaged with a set of userland programs. This doesn't include many user applications, just the kind of things that you think of as being part of any base (like shells, or utilities like the various filesystem tools, grep, find, like that) Linux, OTOH, is only a kernel. Any time you go after a distribution that has more than the kernel (and ONLY the kernel) its because the group putting together that distribution has decided to attach those parts, but the Linux developers are concerned with the kernel alone. So, when you talk about, say, FreeBSD, you're talking about kernel + userland base. This isn't truie with Linux, so all linuxes are just a little bit different in their choice of userland tools. Some Linux distros cater more to developers, some to businesspeople, some to newbies, some to professionals. FreeBSD is FreeBSD. There are good reasons why both are as they are, neither is (without your own opinion making it so) better. It is usually true that Linuxes all have better coverage of device drivers. It is also usually true BSD's are usually more evenly planned. But, there are differences. What you ought to do is to read as many different OSes as yo have time for, because it sure makes a great hobby. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkifWQgACgkQz62J6PPcoOlHmgCfRZFD/GhB0Isz/ZJ2MOt/nU5i BYAAnR4ahD7qLaX1RmAMpT56egSIbbah =lTA4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
Chuck Robey ha scritto: You might possibly be missing one of the most basic (in organization) differences between any BSD and any Linux is that BSD's are all built and packaged with a set of userland programs. This doesn't include many user applications, just the kind of things that you think of as being part of any base (like shells, or utilities like the various filesystem tools, grep, find, like that) Linux, OTOH, is only a kernel. Any time you go after a distribution that has more than the kernel (and ONLY the kernel) its because the group putting together that distribution has decided to attach those parts, but the Linux developers are concerned with the kernel alone. Ehm, thanks for the lesson, but I am actually well aware of that. I installed and used a lot of Linux distros and, to a lesser extent, BSD and other exotic systems (Hurd anyone?). Instead, maybe you might possibly be missing the fact that kernel-BSD systems with GNU userlands have been attempted (Debian GNU/kFreeBSD being one - dunno about the Gentoo/FreeBSD port -is it still alive, by the way?). I wondered if there is the contrary, as a startpoint. So, when you talk about, say, FreeBSD, you're talking about kernel + userland base. This isn't truie with Linux, so all linuxes are just a little bit different in their choice of userland tools. That's why I asked if there is some Linux that is not a little bit but *wildly* different, as to be almost unrecognizable as the Linux we're all familiar with (that usually is done by a bash/zsh/ksh shell + other gnu coreutils etc.) For a (theoretical) example, imagine a system that boots in the Windows Powershell on top of the Linux kernel. m.
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Sonntag, 10. August 2008, b.n. wrote: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? linux + uclibc + busybox? yes. And maybe you even get X or KDE run on it - google and tell us your results ;) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/uclibc.txt
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 00:54 +0200, b.n. wrote: That's why I asked if there is some Linux that is not a little bit but *wildly* different, as to be almost unrecognizable as the Linux we're all familiar with (that usually is done by a bash/zsh/ksh shell + other gnu coreutils etc.) For a (theoretical) example, imagine a system that boots in the Windows Powershell on top of the Linux kernel. Now that you mention it, I think there is a PLC manufacturer that has a real time windows CE environment. It works because they use a Linux kernel with the low latency and real-time options, which only hands over run time to windows when it decides it can. I was reading about it a while back... If you want I could dig up some more? cya, -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: On Sonntag, 10. August 2008, b.n. wrote: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? linux + uclibc + busybox? yes. And maybe you even get X or KDE run on it - google and tell us your results ;) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/uclibc.txt Wow! To bring back the thread on a Gentoo topic, I found neat howtos on the wiki: http://gentoo-wiki.com/TinyGentoo http://gentoo-wiki.com/Embedded_Gentoo I guess I'll try when I'll have some really spare time... Thanks for the cool link. The next step, I guess, is things that differ conceptually from the familiar Linux we're accustomed to. That is, if you follow newslogs like OSNews, you'll see a lot of hobbysts and engineers like to create new kernels. There is less interest in doing conceptually novel userlands (novel shells etc.) or it is just my impression? Maybe a more boring task? Sorry for the naive question, I am *by no mean* a system programmer (All I know is some decent Python, and I am just *now* learning the basics of C++ ,that's it), so I'm sure I am plain wrong or there are rock solid reasons behind it... m.
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 b.n. wrote: Chuck Robey ha scritto: You might possibly be missing one of the most basic (in organization) differences between any BSD and any Linux is that BSD's are all built and packaged with a set of userland programs. This doesn't include many user applications, just the kind of things that you think of as being part of any base (like shells, or utilities like the various filesystem tools, grep, find, like that) Linux, OTOH, is only a kernel. Any time you go after a distribution that has more than the kernel (and ONLY the kernel) its because the group putting together that distribution has decided to attach those parts, but the Linux developers are concerned with the kernel alone. Ehm, thanks for the lesson, but I am actually well aware of that. I installed and used a lot of Linux distros and, to a lesser extent, BSD and other exotic systems (Hurd anyone?). Instead, maybe you might possibly be missing the fact that kernel-BSD systems with GNU userlands have been attempted (Debian GNU/kFreeBSD being one - dunno about the Gentoo/FreeBSD port -is it still alive, by the way?). I wondered if there is the contrary, as a startpoint. So, when you talk about, say, FreeBSD, you're talking about kernel + userland base. This isn't truie with Linux, so all linuxes are just a little bit different in their choice of userland tools. That's why I asked if there is some Linux that is not a little bit but *wildly* different, as to be almost unrecognizable as the Linux we're all familiar with (that usually is done by a bash/zsh/ksh shell + other gnu coreutils etc.) For a (theoretical) example, imagine a system that boots in the Windows Powershell on top of the Linux kernel. m. Sorry. Not to be insulting, but it really sounded like a newbie question, which is why I reacted that way. On your own rereading, doesn't it sound a bit that way to you, a bit? I apologize, then. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkifhewACgkQz62J6PPcoOnGyQCfVJeYfaVDjZGChV/U92F3B6ve pqoAni0TBcjaapnxKEmgK20+FcOS/X55 =g/B1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?
On Montag, 11. August 2008, b.n. wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: On Sonntag, 10. August 2008, b.n. wrote: Hi, I ask it here because I really don't know where to ask it. Is there a Linux system somewhere with a *non-GNU* userland? linux + uclibc + busybox? yes. And maybe you even get X or KDE run on it - google and tell us your results ;) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/uclibc.txt Wow! To bring back the thread on a Gentoo topic, I found neat howtos on the wiki: http://gentoo-wiki.com/TinyGentoo http://gentoo-wiki.com/Embedded_Gentoo I guess I'll try when I'll have some really spare time... Thanks for the cool link. The next step, I guess, is things that differ conceptually from the familiar Linux we're accustomed to. That is, if you follow newslogs like OSNews, you'll see a lot of hobbysts and engineers like to create new kernels. There is less interest in doing conceptually novel userlands (novel shells etc.) or it is just my impression? Maybe a more boring task? there are many shells. sh, bash, bsh. korn, csh, zsh, dash, tcsh, why make a new one, if you can do incredible stuff with zsh? A shell is not so easy to create. A new kernel is not so hard to do. The problem are the drivers - and all the quirks. It is one thing to write a little task scheduler for your little pet project, but if it crashs constantly it becomes a bitch to fight through all the errata. But at the beginning a simple kernel is much easier to do than stuff that runs on it (simple is the important work. A non-simple kernel is very hard). Another thing are libcs. A libc is a bitch. Luckily there is a whole bunch to choose from. glibc, bsd's libc, uclibc, dietlibc, ... so why re-invent the wheel? Or look at X. X is horrible. A convoluted mess of grown cruft and standards to hold the pile together. But where is the replacement? Fiasco/Berlin? failed. Y-window? failed. Because X works good enough. And if you aren't writing toolkits or apps using xlib directly, you don't need to care about most of the stuff. So hobbyist concentrate on the easy stuff - and a userland is not easy. Userland is not boring - it is very hard. And the best userland doesn't help you if no 3rd party software runs on it.
