| > The approach of Bedrock Linux is very interesting. It makes use of Linux-specific features like bind mounts and tries to unify several linux distributions into one meta-distribution, which gives the framework for the multi-distribution operations. Not just "several" - we're going a bit more ambitious and aiming for most if not all. > They could also use namespaces for a more strict separation of clients, but that's a detail. We're purposefully avoiding separation of clients. Everything should interact as closely as is possible to how it does normally in other Linux distributions. If a user wants isolation, something like LXC or OpenVZ could be utilized on top of Bedrock Linux just as it could on top of any other distro. > The idea to move completely to musl is a little bit utopistic, because musl libc is in a very early phase if you want to compile any piece of software of the base system with it. It's mostly C99/C11 and POSIX compilant, but there are several GNU-specific libraries missing, and in a world which uses GNU userland on Linux it's not simple to overcome that limitation. We want the core to be fairly minimal; it really should be just enough to bootstrap the other clients. The vast majority of the system should, ideally, be acquired from clients, which can use whatever libraries they want. The missing GNU-specific libraries and other limitations of musl aren't hitting anything we need in the core. If we find we need something that can't be provided by musl, we can always switch tracks or double back in a future release. > The mentioned /etc problem seems to be the same problem as solved by ip-netns(8). Take a look at the source if you need further information, it's based on other bind mounts. At the moment we've got another plan for remedying the /etc issue which is well underway. I'm using an early version of it right now with surprisingly little trouble. A very deep investigation of possibles uses for namespaces/cgroups is planned for the future. > But I don't think Bedrock Linux is the next-generation approach for Linux distributions, or rather software distributions in general, though they don't claim that. ... But I think, as you should noticed, that Bedrock Linux has a right to exist, but it won't be the next-generation approach. I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I'm not really sure how "generations" work with operating systems. It solves a certain set of problems, and has a certain set of limitations. |