Re: Questions on the interoperability between libc, gnumach and hurd servers

[Richard Braun]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:16:46PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Implementing the whole function setsockopt in eglibc would simplify a
> > lot.
> 
> But it can not work: it's pflocal which has to change the option for the
> socket, since that's where the AF_UNIX sockets are actually IMPLEMENTED.
> 
> > how does the above look for a monolithic kernel, like Linux (I could
> > dig that up but if you know already).
> 
> Linux would be user_code -> libc -> system call -> socket core layer ->
> pflocal implementation.
> 
> And it's actually not much less complex to read. Give it a try.
> 
> > > > Don't say that the eglibc-gnumach-hurd combination is simple, then you
> > > > are not serious :(
> > > 
> > > I don't think we ever said that. It's not, and it's not really meant to,
> > > otherwise we wouldn't have so much powerful features.
> > 
> > What are the powerful features compared to a monolithic kernel.
> 
> Using your (as a user) own pflocal instead of the system-provided one,
> using gdb/valgrind on it, etc. See the wiki pages about the benefits of
> the Hurd.
> 
> > Sorry, I cannot see them. I only find tons of not implemented things
> > and nasty bugs.
> 
> I'm speechless.
> 
> Linux also has tons of not implemented things and nasty bugs. It doesn't
> make it a too bad kernel. Not for all situations.

OK, I wanted to keep all this on IRC to avoid creating public archives
humiliating you, but you don't give us much choice, and there is in fact
already many archived occurrences of your complete incompetence and lack
of respect out there to make it really worse for you. Like Samuel, I'm
baffled. You've spent more than a year working on this system, and you
still don't get the big picture of it, asking question such as why
isn't setsockopt implemented in eglibc, or what are the powerful
features of the Hurd, or even is this really a client-server
implementation... And you're blaming lack of documentation for that ?!

Seriously ?

I mean, you're really, seriously asking those questions ?!

>From there, it seems to me you have two options here. You either keep
working on stuff that doesn't require understanding operating systems
(that is, you work on high level package porting, or you move on to
another project that isn't an operating system), or you get to work
and read and learn about them.

Seriously.

-- 
Richard Braun