RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?

[Frank Naumann <fnaumann@prinz-atm.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De>]

Hi Julian!

> Yes. Why is /kern not optional? If it is supposed to do something which
> applications other than a new ps.ttp need, why not move the functionality
> into the existing /proc interface?

For compatibilty reasons we can't expand /proc in a clean way.

> Obviously a MiNT-only feature will work somewhere else. But sometimes it can
> be avoided to move away from existing functionality. The discussion about
> /kern sounds alot like: I don't like this interface, thus I invent a second
> one (which is then MiNT-only). I think it makes more sense to put into /proc
> what's really needed.

No, the reason behind is that the /proc filesystem is now 8 years old and
not powerful enough for modern applications. Especially for tools from
other Unix platforms that we like to have without a complete rewrite.

We don't have enough ressources to maintain our own versions. So we can
stay with the old buggy and outdated tools or we try to port from other
platforms.

> Yes, but 1.15.5 is a release kernel, correct?

Yes, and there is no /kern inside ;-).

> Well, you can. Give it access to the internal variables. Of course it will
> need to be updated when the kernel changes, but that shouldn't be a problem.

No, this isn't a good method in my eyes.

> That's ok -- that's the point of a discussion :-)

The main point of this discussion is the way of FreeMiNT. Eventual it's
time for a goal redefinition.

My main goal is stability, speed and more Unix functionality.
Second goal is to save/enhance TOS compatibility.

Until now I also rejected extensions that don't follow the philosophy of
a good operating system design (like joergs trapatch extension). My
references for a good design is A.Tanenbaum, "Modern Operating Systems" 
and "The design and implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating system" from
McKusick, Bostic, Karels and Quarterman.

The main point are the Unix extensions. In my eyes it's very helpful for
the future and for software porting if we agressive enhace the kernel for
elementar functions.

Until now I added 4 new systemcalls: Dchroot(), Ffchown(), Ffchmod(),
Fstat64(). For the future I planned mmap/getmntent/user_context functions.
I also prepared Fsync(). The MiNT-Lib will support all of these new
features for a higher Unix compatibility.

This affects mostly Unix programs that can better run under MiNT.


Tschuess
   ...Frank

--
ATARI FALCON 040 // MILAN 040
--------------------------------------
Internet: fnaumann@cs.uni-magdeburg.de
Mausnet:  Frank Naumann @ B2