12 Aug
2022
12 Aug
'22
10:08 a.m.
Okay,
The issue I don’t understand, I guess a matter of not understanding Linux internals, is
why does “the kernel” require explicit DECnet support?
I built DECnet-DOS without any cooperation from Microsoft. Or PathWorks for Windows 95
was built on top of published APIs.
Why does a modern OS need stuff built in?
Dave.
Sent from Mail for Windows
12 Aug
12 Aug
10:35 a.m.
New subject: DECnet to be dropped from Linux
On Aug 12, 2022, at 1:08 PM, Dave Mitton via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Okay,
The issue I don’t understand, I guess a matter of not understanding Linux internals, is
why does “the kernel” require explicit DECnet support?
I built DECnet-DOS without any cooperation from Microsoft. Or PathWorks for Windows 95
was built on top of published APIs.
Why does a modern OS need stuff built in?
Dave.
It depends on whether you want to hook into existing system APIs (such as, in this case,
the socket API). And if yes, whether that API is designed to be extensible.
For example, in Linux as in most other operating systems, adding services that look like
device drivers is easy. In a lot of operating systems, adding services that look like
file systems is also doable because that API is designed to be plugged into. But not all
OS APIs are that way. Can a Linux loadable module, without help from the core kernel
code, define a new socket address family, and tie into the socket API for sockets attached
to that family? I don't know. If yes, then indeed doing Linux doesn't require
explicit help from the core kernel. But if no, then it does -- or alternatively the
DECnet API becomes clunkier.
paul
14 Aug
14 Aug
1:22 a.m.
New subject: DECnet to be dropped from Linux
On 12/08/2022 18:35, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Can a Linux loadable module, without help from the
core kernel code,
define a new socket address family, and tie into the socket API for
sockets attached to that family? I don't know. If yes, then indeed
doing Linux doesn't require explicit help from the core kernel. But if
no, then it does -- or alternatively the DECnet API becomes clunkier.
Yes it can and this is what I was describing in my previous post. The
DECnet code could continue to be maintained as an out-of-tree module for
the people that want it even after it's removed from the kernel. The
only thing that may be lost is the Netfilter support. There may be a way
to add that through a module too but I've not looked into it.
Matt
4:53 a.m.
New subject: DECnet to be dropped from Linux
On Aug 14, 2022, at 4:22 AM, Matt Burke via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 12/08/2022 18:35, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Good to know. It may be that this wasn't possible before.
paul
Can a Linux loadable module, without help from
the core kernel code,
define a new socket address family, and tie into the socket API for
sockets attached to that family? I don't know. If yes, then indeed
doing Linux doesn't require explicit help from the core kernel. But if
no, then it does -- or alternatively the DECnet API becomes clunkier.
Yes it can and this is what I was describing in my previous post. The
DECnet code could continue to be maintained as an out-of-tree module for
the people that want it even after it's removed from the kernel. The
only thing that may be lost is the Netfilter support. There may be a way
to add that through a module too but I've not looked into it.
620
days inactive
622
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dave Mitton -
Matt Burke -
Paul Koning