Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 18:14:24 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Common OS/kernel code between freebsd and linux Message-ID: <4BF85740.1090401@nic-naa.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTildjrO2PezVUy0-iS8YrPzsvN3ZpcN4l8kjaByS@mail.gmail.com> References: <50B3A5560BA4D74CADEC55A48B4641B23D5119D0BA@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <AANLkTildjrO2PezVUy0-iS8YrPzsvN3ZpcN4l8kjaByS@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Howdy Anjali, I was paid for over a year to read libc implementations and the supporting kernel code, and wrote XPG/1 as a specification of what my employers at the time, Bull, ICL, Siemons, Olivetti and Nixdorff, circa 1986, were intending to implement, from their various v7, PWB, SysIII and SySV starting points. I was paid for over a year to sort of do the same thing and co-wrote XPG/4.2 as a specification of what the big installed base thought were the syntax and semantics of the kernel entry points and library routines, even commands, that each assumed was present on a host operating system. What you propose is a butt load of work, in effect, the academic exercise of specification of an abstract platform and its interface to a network stack. So who would pay? The correct answer should be of the form "the cost of not doing this to some parties who can (a) become aware of this, and (b) pay, is greater than the cost of doing it. So how much code does either camp care about being portable, and isn't the best answer to "portability" simply tossing another pizza box at the problem and running the application native? You can have fun, but you should have realistic expectations about the uptake of your work by working programmers and program managers and product planners and corporate strategic platform planners. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BF85740.1090401>