Re: 3.0 wishlist Was: Overview of 2.2.x goals?

James Mastros (
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:51:25 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, linux kernel account wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, James Mastros wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, linux kernel account wrote:
> > [...]
> > OK... I don't see having expermental fses in a stable tree as very good,
> > however.
> There is the expirmental config option..

No, I meen because if sombody finds a non-critical bug, or has a patch for
improved performance, it won't go in until the next kernel revision, which,
hopefully, won't be for quite a while.

> > > * Packet scheduling
> > Done, I think.
> The source looks neat.. But how do I turn it on? :)
whatever algorithm you want=m
then insmod the module for the algorithm you want (I say to do this as
modules because that way if the algorithm dosn't work well you can disable
(=not enable) it).

> > > * Improved NAT
> > Huha?
> Ip masq is 1:n nat.. n:n support?
Ahh.. I see.

> > Same as the last one. However, encription can't be in the kernel proper
> > because of iditoic US export restrictions. (Do somthing about it:
> >
> I should have made it clearer: a interface so a userspace daemon can
> perform encryption would be nice..
> As far as distributed net, why not try asking for the sources..
Trust me: I have, as have many other people. (Indeed, I forwarded this
message there.)

> Or am I
> the only person left in the world that wont run a forign bin without
> sources
Not at all. (Though on a home system, I don't see any major reason not to.)

> (esp from some group harnasing cpu to crack des keys, what if
> someone hacked their ftp and changed the code to crack my pw file!)
That's why they don't want to distribute source:
1) So that ppl can't replace the versions that are there with modified
2) So that ppl can't run spam clients (return huge numbers of keys withought
acautally processing them.)

> > > * GGI support (evstack!) config option.
> > Not gonna happen in 2.2... 2.3, possibly.
> I hope not 2.2, it's stable!

> > > * Either in-kernel support for enough PNP to boot a system with
> > > a isa pnp boot device, or a viable userspace solution (like an improved
> > > boot loader, initramdisks that must be rebuilt really dont cut it)
> > You always could boot from an isapnp boot dev, so long as your BIOS supports
> > plug 'n play.
> Yes, but can you mount root from it?
Yes, indeed. If your bios sets up isapnp devices, Linux needn't touch them.
If it dosn't, you currently need to boot, then config pnp.

> > > * Repair broken scsi naming (Devfs looks good so far)
> > I don't think devfs will be mainstreem for quite some time.
> Remember all of this I'm refering to for 3.0..
I forgot about that part.

> > > * Possibly DIPC integration, at least some of the
> > > clustering features that arn't WAY out there. (support
> > > for a daemon providing shared pid space)
> > Not hard to add as a patch, and I think it's going to stay that way till we
> > see some standard for DIPC. (BTW -- DIPC != clustering -- Distributed
> > Interprocess Communication)
> I know that! But it could be handy for people doing clustering, it makes
> programming distributed apps slightly more familar.
I know. But a shared PID space isn't paticularly related to DIPC.

> > It [glibc] looks mature to me. Most things that are broken are the fault
> > of the kernel includes for mixing __kernel_foo_t and foo_t, and the
> > aplication for using kernel interfaces instead of libc's (more stable)
> > interface.
> I ment the use of them maturing.. this means the apps..
Ahh, the apps. They have some maturing to do. But much of the problem
seems to be with the kernel includes.

> > > * pgcc features into the mainstream compiler.
> > Done. If you havn't heard, gcc 2.8 is out.
> Really? Cool stuff. It includes the improved scheduling?
I do belive.

> > > * DOSEMU that can run win3.1 in a xwindow mostly out of the box (almost
> > > there, when will they declare 1.0??), dosemu on non-x86 (that has just
> > > started)..
> > Well, win3.1 in real mode. Windows in extened mode simply isn't possible...
> > it wants to controll things that Linux needs to controll. It simply dosn't
> > play fair.
> Actually, you can use a bin from WINOS2 (a hacked version of windows from
> os2) which is available from some public ftp site.. It actually works..
Right -- that binary has been hacked to play fair.

> > One thing here that might have to do with the kernel is a generic emulation
> > service. IE let userspace handle the invalid instruction fault.
Whops... That won't work -- what if a valid x86 instruction is also a valid
foo instruction (any you are emulating an x86 under a foo).

-=- James Mastros