#901 Re:[osFree] Re: Kernel Development
Expand Messages
criguada@libero.it
Dec 18 1:44 AM
Hi Frank,
Frank Griffin wrote:
> I hate to open an old wound, but this discussion has been had before, in
> depth. It contributed materially to the split between FreeOS and OSFree.
No problem, at least if we don't start another endless war-thread.
I was there at the time od FreeOS, and I was here when osFree started (actually
I was among those who made it start). And I was happy about the split, and when
I saw the old guys that made FreeOS die here I was NOT happy. But this is just
my opinion.
> To give you the short version, it goes something like this....
>
> A: We need a kernel because IBM isn't doing anything with the current
> one, or they're not doing enough, or we'd have to pay to get the new
> ones (or even the old ones).
>
> B: Why don't we base it on Linux, since Linux is pretty much the only OS
> that is coming anywhere close to staying current with device support ?
>
> C1: I don't know anything about kernel programming, but I'm absolutely
> against Linux because it isn't OS/2
The "I don't know anything about kernel programming" argument doesn't mean "I
don't know anything about kernel architectures", at least for me. And it should
be worded more like "I don't have experience in kernel programming".
Put simply, I don't like the traditional unices kernel design, and Linux
doesn't really deviate much from that. It seems that most of the people here
agrees about this, so why do you want me to state this once again?
On the other hand, if you think (and I hope this means that you DO have
experiance in kernel programming) that changing Linux' kernel scheduler and
threading model would be a matter of a few days of hacking away from a single
person, that please announce it on this list and START WORKING. The worst thing
that can happen is that some people will join and help you, and we all will have
to say "sorry, YOU were right".
Then, we all will be able to start ading a layer of compatibility over the Linux
kernel for OS/2 APIs.
> So, how should we evaluate a kernel or OS on which to base a new OS/2 ?
> Simple: look to what it is about OS/2's kernel you liked.
This is exactly what I tried to do. I knew I didn't like Linux nor Windows
(hence ReactOS), and tried to explain clearly _WHY_ I didn't like them, and
tried to suggest an already existing design that I think fits the original OS/2
design better.
Obviously, as staed from others, the device drivers problem arises, and that
leaves us only with Linux and ReactOS (if we DO want to avoid the problem).
Linux is the better tested and stable of the two, so again: if you think Linux'
kernel weaknesses (compared to OS/2) can be easily filled, please propose
something and start a SIG about it.
> On the other hand, the qualities of OS/2 that are most praised above the
> kernel level are the WPS, the GUI, and the filesystem. These have
> little or nothing to do with the kernel, and would have the same look
> and feel regardless of whose kernel you built them for.
This was clearly stated. I even proposed to start with running original IBM code
on top of the new kernel. This will allow us to squeze out bugs in the
compatibility layer, and start adding/changing things later.
> My feeling is that Linux is the only open-source OS which meets the
> performance and stability criteria, as well as the requirement for
> device drivers.
Don't know about the performance and stability, but it surely is the only one
that meets the requirements for device drivers.
> In terms of performance, the new 2.6 kernel supports the Intel
> hyper-threading technology (up to 50% performance improvement on a
> uniprocessor system), which OS/2 never will; I seriously doubt that you
This is to be verified. I don't know if OS/2 "nerver will" (I already heard
about some support coming from Serenity). And I'm very doubtful about the 50%
improvement... all the claims I've heard about (let apart Intel's) report much
lower improvements (10% or so).
OS/2's kernel still is very competitive, despite the fact that it is not
following very closely hardware improvements.
But that's not of interest for this discussion.
> To me, it comes down to the question of do you want to be able to run
> what you perceive as OS/2 (e.g. WPS, PM, HPFS) or do you want, at an
> essentially prohibitive cost, to be able to say "well, at least we
> didn't use Linux", and get something that will either start out as
> mediocre or quickly become mediocre ?
It's not only a question of exterior perception. It's the overall feeling that
must be preserved.
So (let me state it again, adding some more things said by other people here):
- I want OS/2 multitasking/multithreading performance (IOW the OS/2 scheduler
and threading model, or a similar performing one).
- I don't want to mess with kernel recompiles just to add devoce driver support
to the OS.
- I want a "multiple roots" file system model, not the "single root" model from
Linux. I don't know how deeply this is rooted in the kernel. Would be nice to
hear about this.
- I want OS/2 global consistency permeating the whole system, not Unix' mess. I
don't know how deeply this is rooted in Linux' kernel, probably little or
nothing. Would be nice to hear about this.
- X is out of the question. We need PM on top of this. X is already a problem
for Unix users (which are in fact trying to replace it).
Bye
Cris