51–60 of 67 posts
So, Binder? And man, when people call ioctl a bastardized syscall... looks like 9 syscalls in one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only Red Hat actually tried to accommodate others' use cases, Linux systems would be so much better.
What makes you think we are not? What use case would you like to be taken into account in bus1 that is not? Open to suggestions (that is the point of an RFC after all ;) ).
History. The direction past RedHat-led projects have taken.
> What use case would you like to be taken into account in bus1 that is not?
This is no time for me to make any suggestions. ;-) In the future, perhaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very good suggestion. But the reality is that will never, ever happen. Linus and the Linux community as a whole exist in an echo chamber. They never resort to looking outside their little bubble world to see how others solved problems they are trying to fix. They simply are not capable of that. They constantly reinvent the wheel and reinvent it poorly. They should have simply adopted kqueue, ZFS, dtrace, jai…
>ZFS, dtrace These are both using a incompatible license (CDDL), they can't be merged into mainline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>ZFS, dtrace These are both using a incompatible license (CDDL), they can't be merged into mainline.
The incompatible license is the GPL. I think that's where your problem lies. IllumOS, FreeBSD had no problem at all adopting them.
Crafting a new GPL incompatible license for ZFS and DTrace resulted in Linux not being able to incorporate them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"[S]omewhat arbitrary" is a correct description. We take something that is fundamentally partially ordered (real-world events that may happen exactly at the same time), respect the partial order and extend it to a total order. The extension is arbitrary, but I fail to see the problem with that, or how it contradict anything we wrote? Could you explain what bounds you are interested in and in what way you think anythi…
I could. I would rather put it in an email or PR. I'll try to put it together as soon as I have some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed that is how we break ties (not exactly the PID, but you get the idea). The reason this works is that the only time we can have a tie is if there can be no causality between the events. I.e., the two sending events happen concurrently: the two ioctl calls overlap in time, so there would be no way for one to have caused the other. What problem do you see with this?
I foresee a problem where people confuse the wording of "total order on all messages" in the wiki to mean there is a "global total order" - in other words, that bus1 solves distributed systems and we can all go home - and building buggy systems on this assumption. I'm not saying the concept is flawed or the implementation buggy, or anything like that. PS. Neil Brown in the LWN article already conflates "global" and "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The incompatible license is the GPL. I think that's where your problem lies. IllumOS, FreeBSD had no problem at all adopting them.
Linux was GPL licensed long before these projects were open-sourced under CDDL, and there are obvious reasons for why Sun at the time would not want to have their technology advantages incorporated into Linux (like it being their main competitor to whom they were losing in the market place). Crafting a new GPL incompatible license for ZFS and DTrace resulted in Linux not being able to incorporate them.
Sun NEVER intended for Linux not to adopt it. They wanted it to be ubiquitous across all open source platforms.
IMO they should have two claused FreeBSD licensed it but they didn't.