FreeLists / openbeosnetteam / [openbeosnetteam] Re: Me as well...

["David Reid" <dreid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Quoth "David Reid":

He did :)

> >
> >Changes Required
> >- fd == pipe == socket needs to be implemented correctly.  We should be
able
> >to call select on an fd, pipe or socket, set timeouts on pipes and
sockets
> >(don't make sense on fd's do they? ) and so on...  This brings us much
> >closer to being able to port and run all sorts of cool stuff.  Also it
> >dramatically simplifies a lot of posix type stuff.
>
> I think POSIX compliance would be a really good thing.  Hell, even NT did
it. :)

Yeah, it sure did (kinda).

> >- allow sockets to be shared across teams/processes and allow them to be
> >inherited after fork
> >- add support for shutdown
>
> Forgive me for looking like a fool, but what are teams, and shutdown? :)
> (I have done socket code on unix before, just don't recognize the terms,
> haven't done anything to rough.)

shutdown is a call to shutdown a socket...

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=shutdown&apropos=0&sektion=0&ma
npath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html

teams are what beos calls threads under a particular process, if that makes
it any clearer :)  Look in the bebook!

>
> >Would be Nice To Haves
> >
> >- IPv6
>
> I'm definitely interested in this, as well as a few other IP specs such as
> bridging and tunneling using a few different methods(especially IPSec!).
> I think BeOS already did NAT?

Yes, but I think we need to look at that.  It would be cool to add
hooks/support for pf as well...
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=pf&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=
OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=bridge&sektion=4&apropos=0&manp
ath=OpenBSD+Current

> ><I did warn you!>
>
> Nothing wrong with some real conversation going on here. :)

Let's hope so.

> >Can I ask, how committed are we to binary compatability, as this stuff
> >really needs to be ripped out and rewritten, which would blow away any
> >chance of binary compatibility.  It should be possible to support
"recompile
> >and run" without much heartache...
>
> Now, I don't have a lot of experience with deep OS stuff, but wouldn't it
be
> possible to have a set of 'emulation' libraries or something, which could
be
> written on top of our OpenBeOS library in order to provide binary
compatibility,
> but still let us advance R1 in small ways?

I guess so.  I wouldn't be interested in writing them, but no doubt some
other people in need of self flagellation will be.

> (I'm from NetBSD, where there exists COMPAT_LINUX and COMPAT_FREEBSD and
such,
> which allow me to run binaries from linux/freebsd as long as the required
libraries
> are in a directory tree in a specific place blah blah blah.  It's nice in
a *lot*
> of situations.)
>
>
>