Re: Could Guix System eventually run on top of HyperbolaBSD ? slightly off topic

[jbranso@dismail.de]

July 14, 2022 6:24 AM, "zimoun" <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 18:44, Joshua Branson <jbranso@dismail.de> wrote:
> 
> Well, I am missing where it is announced. Could you be more specific?

Someone else already provided the link, but someone on irc did ask me
where the source code for HyperbolaBSD  is?  I can't find it, and that
is a bit troubling...

> 
> If you run OpenBSD kernel and OpenBSD userland, why not just run an
> OpenBSD system? :-)

I love that Guix is the Emacs of distros!  It's cool to customize it!
And easy!  But OpenBSD "seems to be more secure" than GNU/Linux. And 
Linux is huge!  And OpenBSD has some awesome software: pf, spamd, httpd,
and some other stuff that their marketing tells me is good.

Maybe a good first step would be for guix to provide a hardened linux
package.  

> Well, Debian is working (maybe the project is stalling?) on running GNU
> userland using GLibc on the top of a FreeBSD kernel. The conclusion is:
> it is a piece of work. :-)
> 
> https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu
> 
> What I miss with your proposal is: are you interested by OpenBSD
> userland software and you would like them running on a Linux kernel? Or
> are you interested by specific OpenBSD kernel feature and you would like
> be able to run GNU software on it?

I would love to use a secure, extensible, microkernel/exokernel that has a
universal guixy configuration language.  Guix GNU/Hurd System vm is probably 
the best candidate for this, but my understanding is that the "childhurd"  
(a GNU/Hurd running on top of GNU/Linux) is not very stable.  Possibly because
the vm image does not have a swap space.  There was an open bug report for it
but I cannot find it.

Has anyone here had a good experience with a childhurd?  Not a criticism,
I just have not heard many people say that the childhurd is stable/awesome.

> 
> I think, similar as Josselin, that it requires a lot of work because
> many low-level features are kernel dependant. Therefore, it appears to
> me more being worth to focus on smoothing the WSL2 experience, focus on
> the Hurd, or to attempt something on the Darwin kernel.
> 
> Cheers,
> simon