Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ivan Shmakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: [OT] NetBSD vs. Linux(-based systems) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 16:30:42 +0000 Organization: Dbus-free station. Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <107u4ha$2osd4$1@dont-email.me> <108vuq0$2sngv$6@dont-email.me> <109ejg1$2c5$1@reader1.panix.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 16:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="74d2c1bc06899a44f095bcec60de25e0"; logging-data="3993655"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XAvSiHOp41u6gcKNk0MQC" Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZwigiO3fj7oS7y/K/YyfgjfdHC0= License: CC0-1.0 (original contributions only) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.misc:11229 >>>>> On 2025-09-05, Dan Cross wrote: >>>>> In article , Ivan Shmakov wrote: >>>>> On 2025-08-30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > FYI, you are arguing with a known troll. It is unlikely to turn > into a productive exercise, so caveat emptor. I'm inclined to define productive public discussion as one that's informative and interesting to read. Given that I've actually ended up learning a couple of things along the way, I'd say it /was/ productive, in a way. With no "views" and "likes" counts here on Usenet, I have no way of measuring how interesting the subthread was to others (being ill-suited for the group as it is), so I kinda hope for the best. >> When hardware-assisted virtualization /is/ available, the things >> certainly get easier: pretty much anything that can run under, >> say, Qemu, can be run under Xen HVM. The performance may suffer, >> though, should your domU system happen to lack virtio drivers and >> should thus need to resort to using emulated peripherals instead. > Yes. With Xen, you've got the Xen VMM running on the bare metal and > then any OS capable of supporting Xen's Dom0 requirements running as > Dom0, and essentially any OS running as a DomU guest. > So to summarize, you've got a hypervisor that descended from an > old version of Linux, but was heavily modified, running a gaggle > of other systems, none of which necessarily needs to be Linux. Glad to know I wasn't too off the mark in this case. >>> Linux doesn't count these as separate platforms. They're just >>> considered a standard part of regular platform support. >> Which means one needs to be careful when comparing architecture >> support between different kernels. > I gathered your point was that neither Dom0 nor DomU _had_ to be > Linux, and that's true. More to the point here is that my opponent took offense at http://netbsd.org/ports/ listing "Xen" as one of the supported "platforms" - apparently for the sole reason that Linux does it differently. > Note that the troll likes to subtlely change the point that he's > arguing. Well, in a properly set up public debate, there's ought to be a prior agreement on who's arguing what. This is Usenet, however, so we all figure out what points we do and do not want to argue along the way. I doubt I can rightfully blame a person for not sharing my preferences about on what to argue about - especially as I don't pay them for having an argument with me. >> That said, I've last tinkered with Linux around the days of 2.0.36 >> (IIRC), and I don't recall reading any Linux sources newer than >> version 4. If you have experience patching newer Linux kernels, and >> in particular if you find the code easy to follow, - please share. > He doesn't. That's what I suspect as well. I'd still be delighted to be proven wrong.