From: Anthony S. <an...@si...> - 2004-04-13 07:12:24
|
I think you have a great vision and a great product, but why are you using a virtualization method for hosting the CoLinux environment on Windows instead of creating a true Linux Subsystem? Using the NT Subsystem would allow you many of the features you are striving to implement, especially interoperability with the existing Win32 subsystem and the NT kernel level drivers? One of the remarkable abilities of the NT architecture is the client/server kernel that allows for Subsystem implementations, as has been demonstrated by Win32, Win64, OS/2, Posix, and even Microsoft Unix services. They are all basic independent OSes with their own kernels that sit on top of the NT kernel architecture. If you designed CoLinux as a true subsystem of NT, you would still be able to maintain a full Linux kernel and binary compatibility, but also be able to utilize drivers from the NT core and not have to virtualize 'host drivers' and also be able to share information via the NT kernel to other subsystems like Win32/Win64, etc. Even XWindowed applications could run in independent windows and not in the CoLinux virtualization Window. I don't know if this is a concept you have already explored, but I find it strange that with the NT kernel subsystem technologies that you would set out to create a virtualization environment for your CoLinux instead of creating an NT Linux Subsystem. Keep up the good work, Anthony |
From: andre <avb...@gm...> - 2004-04-13 23:19:44
|
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 09:12, Anthony Scott wrote: > I think you have a great vision and a great product, but why are you using > a virtualization method for hosting the CoLinux environment on Windows > instead of creating a true Linux Subsystem? > > > > Using the NT Subsystem would allow you many of the features you are > striving to implement, especially interoperability with the existing Win32 > subsystem and the NT kernel level drivers? > > > > One of the remarkable abilities of the NT architecture is the client/server > kernel that allows for Subsystem implementations, as has been demonstrated > by Win32, Win64, OS/2, Posix, and even Microsoft Unix services. They are > all basic independent OSes with their own kernels that sit on top of the NT > kernel architecture. > > > > If you designed CoLinux as a true subsystem of NT, you would still be able > to maintain a full Linux kernel and binary compatibility, but also be able > to utilize drivers from the NT core and not have to virtualize 'host > drivers' and also be able to share information via the NT kernel to other > subsystems like Win32/Win64, etc. > > > > Even XWindowed applications could run in independent windows and not in the > CoLinux virtualization Window. You can do that already with cygwin XFree86. > > > > I don't know if this is a concept you have already explored, but I find it > strange that with the NT kernel subsystem technologies that you would set > out to create a virtualization environment for your CoLinux instead of > creating an NT Linux Subsystem. There are a lot less people who know the NT kernel subsystem than regular windows. And i have a suspision that if microsoft would change it nobody but colinux would care. Also colinux is not only meant for windows but also for linux and any other modern operating system so you can't be too smart |