Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 22:08:26 +0300 From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms@...ersoff.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Subject: Re: Advocating musl to in windows subsystem and OS X Hello Rich, One thing that might make sense - is to compare performance and resource consumption of OpenBSD and Musl based Linux distro (e.g. Alpine) because both targets the same audience. -Dmitry On 12.06.2020 20:37, 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. > >> and point them to your comparison >> (http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html ) ? >> Also, perhaps that comparison can have Bionic added too and compared >> to that as well ? > > The comparison is really out-of-date, and needs some serious > methodological overhaul. Some of the points are quantitative and need > to be pegged to particular versions to be relevant, and need a way of > testing all the libcs with the same hardware/kernel to be able to > update them at all. All of that is beyond the scope of anything I want > to do right now, but I'd be interested in helping someone else who > wants to continue it setup a procedure and revamped test cases. > > The qualitative parts are fairly easy to keep up-to-date though, and > Bionic and others could probably be added there. I don't think it > makes sense to include non-Linux libc's, though, since they can't be > used interchangibly -- they're not options you have. > >> Perhaps it's most appropriate to do this through posting an issue at >> their relevant repo's (for MS, it's >> https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel/issues , for apple >> (https://github.com/apple ), I'm not sure which repo holds the libc. > > Unfortunately WSL1 has been broken and can't safely run musl binaries > since forever, and it's apparently not getting fixed despite the fix > being a one-liner if you had the source: > > https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/830 > > I'm not sure if WSL1 is still an option, but in some sense it "should > be" because it's lighter and cleaner than WSL2 which was basically > just "let's give up and use a VM with a real Linux kernel". If WSL1 > ceases to be a thing, using musl on WSL becomes more attractive. I > re-pinged the issue to find out what's up. > > Rich >
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.