[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2268137.trlylqD8t3@localhost>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:25:34 -0600
From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Advocating musl to in windows subsystem and OS X
On Friday, June 12, 2020 1:05:02 PM MDT Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 12/06/2020 19:37, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 06:56:28PM +0200, Brian Peregrine wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> after thinking about my previous post (Advocating musl to the chromium
> >> OS developers ), it struck me that both Microsoft and Apple use some
> >> sort of libc too (Microsoft has the "subsystem for linux" on windows
> >> 10 now, and Apple's OS X is based on linux too -I think it was based
> >> on the "Darwin" linux distro.
> >
> > No, OSX is in some sense a BSD fork, but with major architectural
> > changes, and has nothing to do with Linux. Their libc is a BSD one
> > (FreeBSD I think) with tons of gratuitous changes made that did little
> > but intentionally break things, basically for NIH purposes/justifying
> > the existence of the project. (This is much like Google's Fuchsia fork
> > of musl.)
> >
> > musl does not run on OSX and while all of the pure-library code and
> > stdio code could in principle be used, actually making "musl for OSX"
> > would be a large project that doesn't make sense. What would make much
> > more sense is either reusing code or making corresponding improvements
> > based on things that are better in musl.
> >
> >> Microsoft probably uses glibc (as the subsystem seems to be
> >> canonical-made and they use glibc in ubuntu), for os x, I'm not sure
> >> what is being used.
> >> See https://itsfoss.com/install-bash-on-windows/
> >> https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/microsoft-linux-distros-windows-10/
> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3601092
> >>
> >> In either case, Rich, perhaps you can propose to both that they use
> >> musl,
> >
> > In some sense WSL doesn't "use" any libc; it's a thin syscall
> > emulation layer (WSL1) or near-full-linux-vm (WSL2) that's supposed to
> > be able to run any Linux userspace. My understanding is that they ship
> > some glibc-based distro, and I don't see that being viable for them to
> > change because they're supporting whatever users have built on it, but
> > anyone's free to use whatever they prefer.
> >
> > On a higher level, I don't really want anyone shipping musl in places
> > where the end user who receives it doesn't intend to use musl, for
> > much the same reason that I don't like it when distros ship systemd to
> > folks who don't intend to use systemd. It leads to gratuitous
> > complaints from people who are unhappy that it's different from what
> > they expect, and keep asking for changes to make it more glibc-like.
> > I'd much rather seek out a user base that *wants* what's different
> > about musl rather than "puts up with" what's different about musl.
>
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/alpine-wsl/9p804crf0395#activetab=pivot:ov
> erviewtab
>
> This seems available.
It is also not supported at all by Alpine team itself, and apk-tools 3 will
break with WSL1 due to the way the new database code uses mmap access.
In other words, if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
Ariadne
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
