Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:46:58 +0100 (CET) From: Stephane Legrand <Stephane.Legrand@wanadoo.fr> To: Michael Robinson <robinson@public.bta.net.cn> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: green threads vs. native threads ... Message-ID: <199811191346.OAA00545@sequoia.mondomaineamoi.megalo> In-Reply-To: <199811190910.RAA01871@public.bta.net.cn> References: <199811190910.RAA01871@public.bta.net.cn>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think that someone is working on POSIX thread kernel on FreeBSD (see the following message posted on comp.arch.embedded, comp.realtime and comp.programming.literate). On the web page (http://www.cornfed.com/pk/index.html), the author says : "You need FreeBSD, Latex 2.09, and noweb to make the whole thing work. For the moment, the only support you get is this: 1.Untar the distribution using a command like tar xzvf pk.tgz 2.In the root directory of the distribution, pk, type make. 3.When the build completes, you'll have two files, pk.ps in the pk/doc directory, and os in the pk/sys/src/kern directory. pk.ps is the current documentation and os is a kernel executable image that can be booted using the FreeBSD boot sequence." -------- FORWARDED MESSAGE -------- Ok, this might sound insane but what the hell. I've started an an Open-Source POSIX Threads Kernel. I'm gonna call it Pkernel (unless this name is already taken) and the system is LGPL'd which basically means you can used it in anything you want. The only thing that has to be posted back to the net are changes to files in the official distribution. So, why am I doing this? There are several reasons: 1) I've been itching to do an open-source project. I've been using GNU and FreeBSD for years and I just sort of feel like I want to. 2) While eCos has recently been released, RTEMS is available, and uCos is out there, there are two problems associated with these systems. First, I hear lots of clamoring for POSIX compatibility. Second, these systems aren't POSIX compatible AND open-source, at least not yet. eCos may get there, don't know about RTEMS cuz it's sort of behind OAR, uCos never was and its licensing has recently changed. 3) I've been looking for a good project to do some literate programming on and this seems like a good one to try it on. Ok, for those that know about Roadrunner, here's the scoop on how this fits with that. Roadrunner is my primary thing and has a lot more function to it than Pkernel. Its what I do ``during the day'' and I'm trying to make money on it. That said, Pkernel has nothing to do with Roadrunner, its a completely different code base and is open-source, no tricks, no strings attached, and it never will. In addition, in the truest sense of an open-source project, I do this on a time-available basis. So, I've got a little something ready for folks, it close to what uCos-I had. So take a peek and have fun! The distribution is located at http://www.cornfed.com/pkernel. Later, FM -- Frank W Miller Cornfed Systems Inc www.cornfed.com -------- END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE -------- Michael Robinson writes: > Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> writes: > >> Would it be a moot point to ask for the FreeBSD kernel to support native > >> threads? > > > >Sure. Patches to implement them are gladly accepted. Oh, you mean > >forcing someone to implement threads in FreeBSD? Naw, that's not the > >way it's done. New features get done because someone thems to be done > >and does them. > > That's one way of looking at it. Here's another way of looking at it: > > "A good example of keeping sight of the larger picture is FreeBSD's > attitude towards its Linux emulation. It's not only very important to > us that FreeBSD continues to run Linux binaries effectively, it's also > what we suggest to those ISVs who are coming back somewhat cautiously > to this "new" Unix market and obviously want to maximize their gains > while minimizing risk. We tell them to port to Linux and not FreeBSD, > even though we'd certainly love to have native binaries for anything > and everything, and, by telling them to port to Linux first (or at > all), we are giving them the best advice on how to get access to the > widest possible segment of the free software market, one which includes > but is not limited to us." > > -Jordan Hubbard ( http://editorials.freshmeat.net/jordan980713/ ) > > As I mentioned in the part you cut out, Linux emulation is increasingly > broken in FreeBSD as more software comes to rely on Linux native threads. > If it is, in fact, "very important to us that FreeBSD continues to run > Linux binaries effectively" (whoever "us" is), I would recommend to "us" > that cooperating on a native threads solution be given a higher priority. > > Otherwise, FreeBSD will *not* be part of the free software market that > developers get access to when they follow Jordan's advice. > > -Michael Robinson > -- Stephane.Legrand@wanadoo.fr | systeme d'exploitation FreeBSD http://perso.wanadoo.fr/stephane.legrand/ | http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811191346.OAA00545>