Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:15 UTC, submitted by Gregory Plummer
GNU, GPL, Open Source "So what is the state of the Hurd? Is it vaporware, like Duke Nukem Forever? Fortunately not: the code exists, there is still work going on (for instance as part of Google Summer of Code), and there are even some relatively functional Hurd distributions. Let's look first at the code and the current architecture, and then at the Hurd distributions."
Order by: Score:
Comment by Brynet
by brynet on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:25 UTC
brynet
Member since:
2010-03-02

I remember reading that Duke Nukem Forever is due out in 2011, eventually we're going to need to find a new piece of vapourware.

As for Hurd, it's probably not anywhere near as popular as even some hobby kernels infrequently advertised here on OSNews.. but no doubt there is a niche it will fill, like embedded on a probe sent to Pluto, just as an excuse to include RMS as part of the payload.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Brynet
by ciplogic on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 00:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

I think that GNU Hurd will replace anyway in time SkyOS (as vaporwarre) and at least regarding Hurd is that is a released kernel. Anyone whom understands it will share it's ideas and will make a good base for future development of other OSS kernels (including Linux)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by pandronic on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Pixel Image Editor - best vaporware of them all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by _xmv on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

SkyOS exists and run. development halted but "it works" and anyone can run it.
Vaporware is software that is claimed to exist but no one has seen it or can run it except the people who make claims about it.


Sound like those guys talking about bricked devices while u click reset and "unbricked"

Oh god, i shut down my phone buttons don't work except power ITS BRICKED O LORD HALP.


Stupidity at it's best.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by yahya on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
yahya Member since:
2007-03-29

SkyOS exists and run. development halted but "it works"

Well, yes, that's what people say.

and anyone can run it.


Not really, as there is no way of obtaining it. When you click "Get SkyOS" on the web site, you are sent to http://skyos.org/?q=node/4 where it says: "SkyOS is currently not available for download, for additional information please refer to this page."

This message has been there for more than a year now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Brynet
by gnufreex on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Brynet"
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

Hurd runs too. I am running it right now in VirtualBox:

http://i51.tinypic.com/23l443.png

That is Debian GNU/Hurd. I couldn't get ArchHurd to work, but then again, I didn't try too hard. When DDE gets ported (hopefully in a few months), I will run it on real hardware and I hope to start contributing.

Develompent is active, and as I mentioned above, current focus is porting Device Driver Environment to GNU Mach.

http://wiki.tudos.org/DDE/DDEKit#Overview

That will enable running Linux and FreeBSD drivers unchanged as a user-space process.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by Timmmm on Sat 25th Sep 2010 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

Anyone whom understands it


Heh, you have to love it when people try to be clever. Obviously it should be 'who'.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by FealDorf
by FealDorf on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:01 UTC
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

Why do I feel like I've already seen this article posted here before :-s

I'd really like a *simpler* description of HURD's architecture though.. The manifesto was a bit tough for me to understand.

Reply Score: 1

I bet on the duke
by google_ninja on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:29 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

The code for duke nuke'em has also been consistently worked on since the project started on, and there have been several playable demos made for the press. There really isn't much difference between the two, but my bet is that the duke will be kicking ass and chewing bubble gum long before we have usable HURD machines.

Reply Score: 7

Comment by orestes
by orestes on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:44 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem with the Hurd, even if they do get it working perfectly, is that it's a solution looking for a problem. Sure it may be conceptually better in some regards, but we already have serviceable OSes for virtually any market segment you could imagine it filling.

Reply Score: 4

Outdated article
by Radio on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:01 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

This one is far more instructive and correct:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/GNU-HURD-Altered-visions-and-...

Little know fact: there is one production-ready widely used microkernel: the EKA2 at the heart of Symbian.

Creating a kernel is really a question of getting things right, rather than man-months of work: the EKA (symbian), XNU (OSX) and Linux kernel were all written in a short time by small teams, while the Hurd team, and also the behemoth Microsoft struggled (and often failed, as MS failed several times to produce a succesor to the NT kernel). So, getting a working Hurd may happen, one day...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:12 UTC in reply to "Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

This post is pretty much completely wrong.

OSX is based on Nextstep, and they didn't write it from scratch in a very short time, they bought the damn thing and modified it. Before that Apple tried several times to replace the classic Mac OS, please google Pink, Taligent and Rhapsody.

MS has never tried several times to replace the NT kernel, they did however write it from scratch, and in 2001 used it to replace the Win9x line of Windows. Windows 7, Vista, XP and Win2k are all NT. NT is a modern kernel, with modern features, it would be stupid for MS to try and replace it.

Edited 2010-09-21 23:13 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Outdated article
by Radio on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Yeah, and the NextStep kernel appeared out of thin air?

It was a huge rewrite of Mach mixed with BSD, done by a small team lead by Avadis Tevanian in a couple years. Huge enough to be considered as a "new" kernel.

And the Longhorn kernel was supposed to be a complete rewrite, but they dropped everything and went back to improving NT.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Outdated article
by dvhh on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

This is only my opinion, but the NT kernel is a very modern one, the userspace is mostly the problem here.
I would have better faith in the minwin initiative than in a new kernel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Outdated article
by gus3 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Outdated article"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

The NT kernel traces its roots back to VMS for the VAX, by Digital Equipment. It's especially obvious in the common characteristics between NTFS and Files-11.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Outdated article
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Outdated article"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The NT kernel traces its roots back to VMS for the VAX, by Digital Equipment.


Not entirely - at least, not in the sense that NT was an evolution of VAX. It's just that the guy who did VMS went on to do NT at Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Outdated article
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outdated article"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"The NT kernel traces its roots back to VMS for the VAX, by Digital Equipment.


Not entirely - at least, not in the sense that NT was an evolution of VAX. It's just that the guy who did VMS went on to do NT at Microsoft.
"

Of course, using the logic of the OP, the BeOS kernel owes a lot to Mac OS, as a lot of the engineers were either ex Apple engineers or Mac developers in the beginning. In other words, as Thom says, take the "VMS" with a pinch of salt :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Outdated article
by Tuishimi on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outdated article"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Very true. Having actually worked on VMS it does make me feel some affinity toward NT an NTFS... tho' I think RMS over Files-11 blew NTFS away. It was so nice to work with. Just as DCL blows DOS CMD away. In fact just about everything to do with VMS and the layered services and apps blew Windows away. ;) (I am a little biased in that regard).

And also as the poster below you mentioned... the relationship of Mac OS to BeOS, ditto. BeOS was so much better than Mac OS at the time... (opinion)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Outdated article
by bogomipz on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Outdated article"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Of course BeOS was better than System 7. Why else would Apple consider buying Be Corp.? They went with NeXT Software because JLG demanded more than Apple were willing to pay. (Although they ended up paying more than twice as much for NeXT.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Outdated article
by zizban on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Outdated article"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

No BeOS at the time was very primitive. Poor network support, poor printing support, wobbly kernel. People compare BeOS 5 with the Mac OS but at the time when Apple purchased NeXT the BeOS was very rough.

Though in time it go to be great.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Outdated article
by tylerdurden on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outdated article"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

VAX is a computer architecture, I think you meant VMS its intended OS. Right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It was never supposed to be a complete rewrite. Google 3 pillars of Longhorn.

Also, NextStep was on version 3.3, released in 1995 when Apple bought them. It was first realeased in 89, and Apple bought them in 99. NextStep also ran on mach and BSD. Mach predates even Nextstep, it was written at Carnegie Mellon, and that project went from 1985 to 1994. BSD is based on the original Berkley Software Distribution, which was written at uh..Berkley, and was first released in 1977.

Doesn't sound like quickly, or a small team to me. All this information can be found through google.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Outdated article
by mckill on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Outdated article"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

IAlso, NextStep was on version 3.3, released in 1995 when Apple bought them. It was first realeased in 89, and Apple bought them in 99. NextStep also ran on mach and BSD.


Apple bought next in 96 and released Rhapsody in 98.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

They certainly did not buy Next in 1996, they bought it in 1999. Rhapsody was released, as OS X, but that happened in 2000.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Actually, I looked it up again, and I was wrong, it was 1996, not 99. Sorry

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Outdated article
by tylerdurden on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outdated article"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

And NextStep was in version 4.0 and named "OpenStep" by then ;-) I still have the box somewhere...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Outdated article
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Outdated article"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

...NextStep was on version 3.3, released in 1995 when Apple bought them.


I don't mean to seem like I'm constantly correcting you, but no, wrong. OpenStep was released prior to the Apple acquisition. In fact, OpenStep 4.2 was the last release IIRC. Apple continued to ship OpenStep for quite a while after they owned Next.

The other thing of note is that OPENSTEP was a specification that Next created and a bunch of manufacturers supported. So there was a version of OPENSTEP running on Mach, Intel, Windows NT, some of the Sun hardware and some of the HP RISC based work stations. The Sun and WinNT versions ran on top of the underlying OS, the others ported the entire OS (IIRC). I've used the NT version and it works reasonably well, even today.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

OpenStep is not NextStep. OpenStep is the API and Spec that NextStep used. And just like NextStep, it WAS released prior to the acquisition, because it was first released in the 93. I never said NextStep or OpenStep wasn't released before the acquisition, so I'm not sure what your point is. OpenStep is also what GNUStep is based on.

NextStep is the OS and OpenStep is the API.

I don't think you are correcting me, because you aren't quite right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Outdated article
by bogomipz on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outdated article"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Actually, henderson101 was almost right about OpenStep and OPENSTEP, he just had them reversed: OpenStep is the spec and OPENSTEP is what NeXTstep was rebranded as in the next release after the spec was out.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7339524&id=571610449

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Outdated article
by tylerdurden on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Outdated article"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Actually the previous poster was correct.

NextStep stopped at version 3.3, 4.x and on were rebranded to OpenStep (or OPENSTEP I always got confused with Jobs's OCD capitalization shenanigans during that period).

I actually have the box with the OS somewhere in the basement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Outdated article
by bogomipz on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Outdated article"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

The other thing of note is that OPENSTEP was a specification that Next created and a bunch of manufacturers supported.


If I'm not mistaken, the bunch was limited to NeXT and Sun - the two companies that collaborated on the specification. Sun did the version running on top of Solaris with some help from NeXT presumably, while NeXT did the one running on NT as well as the full operating system running on 4 different architectures, including Sun boxes. Sun soon lost interest in favour of Java, though ;)

This series is quite interesting, btw;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLHr6Z35t1Q

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Outdated article
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Outdated article"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"...NextStep was on version 3.3, released in 1995 when Apple bought them.


I don't mean to seem like I'm constantly correcting you, but no, wrong. OpenStep was released prior to the Apple acquisition. In fact, OpenStep 4.2 was the last release IIRC. Apple continued to ship OpenStep for quite a while after they owned Next.
"
No need to correct him here, he is saying the same thing you are, just with more mushy grammar. His sentence would read better as "NextStep was on version 3.3, which was released in 1995, when Apple bought them (in 1999)." He's not saying 3.3 was released after Apple bought them, but that it was already released at that point

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Outdated article
by Boomshiki on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
Boomshiki Member since:
2008-06-11


And the Longhorn kernel was supposed to be a complete rewrite, but they dropped everything and went back to improving NT.


It was supposed to be a rewrite by rumor only. Microsoft's statement on the issue was something along the lines of "we always planned to work off of Vista's kernel, why would we abandon it after so much hard work?"

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Outdated article
by Kasi on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

Additionally while MS Research has produced a many different kernels none of them have never been considered for implementation on commercial platforms irrespective of how good/interesting they were.

Even the most recent Singularity project which garnered a fair amount of interest was dismissed as only a test bed for incremental changes to the present kernel.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Outdated article
by _xmv on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

NT is a modern kernel, with modern features, it would be stupid for MS to try and replace it.

Not stupid.
MS has been working on alternative OS (including new kernels) for a while. Take a look at singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_%28operating_system~*~...) for example.

They're "only" research OS but they're pretty damn cool IMO. And so who knows, the NT kernel might be replaced someday (along with a lot of the legacy)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Outdated article
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

singularity was before midori. They've actually talked about migrating to midori.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_%28operating_system%29

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Outdated article
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

OSX is based on Nextstep, and they didn't write it from scratch in a very short time, they bought the damn thing and modified it.


Well, OpenStep {OS, not specification}, but essentially correct. NextStep's API was not OPENSTEP {Specification, not OS} compliant. The API in OpenStep 4.x is what Cocoa is based on/morphed from.

Before that Apple tried several times to replace the classic Mac OS :


True.

Pink,


Yes! Which was the project a few Be Engineers were working on before they joined Be Inc. There was Blue too, apparently.

Taligent


Technically, Taligent was what Pink became after Apple lost direction and took the "partnership" route. I have no idea if they shared a line of code, but I don't think Pink was an actual OS at the point they changed direction.

What you have COMPLETELY missed is Copland. This was what was to be Mac OS 8 and what was actually released Mac OS 8 ended up raping to steal a lot of the "new" features. I used to have a copy of Copland, but I never got it running because it required a serial debugger and I couldn't be arsed to mess about with it.

and Rhapsody.


Wrong. Wronger that a wrong turn in wrongton. Rhapsody *IS* Mac OS X. Rhapsody is Apples's "first go" at making OpenStep in to a Mac alike OS. The entire system is pure STEP, it just has the Workspace manager with an Apple style menu and platinum style Icons. In Fact, Mac OS X Server 1.x looks exactly like Rhapsody, and the initial developer released of OS X have a very similar "Finder" to Rhapsody. It wasn't till 3rd or 4th Developer Release that it started to look OS X-ish, and not till the Public Beta that it really was OS X as we know it.

MS has never tried several times to replace the NT kernel,


The Windows NT Kernel has been altered to varying degrees (sometimes beyond recognition) on a number of occasions.

1) NT 3.x > NT 4
2) XP > Vista/7
3) Server 2008
4) Longhorn (aborted)
5) Windows Mobile

NT 3.5 did not integrate the GDI. How much of a rewrite do you think it took to put the user land GDI functionality in to the NT4 kernel? It was not "trivial".

NT is a modern kernel, with modern features, it would be stupid for MS to try and replace it.


As to that last statement - it's debatable. I'd say, Windows 7 is the most happy I've been about Windows since Windows 2000 (which I used for about 6 years.) XP just seemed like tweaks over 2000 for the most part (yeah, super over generalisation, but let me have that one please :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Just because Rhapsody became OS X, does not mean that it was not an attempt to replace classic Mac OS, it was just successful

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Windows 7 is NT.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Outdated article
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 19:23 UTC in reply to "Outdated article"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Little know fact: there is one production-ready widely used microkernel: the EKA2 at the heart of Symbian.


Widely known fact: there is a production-ready widely known used microkernel: QNX's kernel.

Reply Score: 1

DDE Kit???
by fithisux on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 07:33 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

The article fails to trace the DDEKit work and ViengoOS work. Moreover sticking to Mach seems a dead end unless they aim to create an OS utilizing Apple public available sources (which I think would be a good approach).

Reply Score: 2

RE: DDE Kit???
by Radio on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 10:29 UTC in reply to "DDE Kit???"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The Apple XNU kernel is not a microkernel.

The fact they use (only parts of) the Mach kernel is misleading, it is an hybrid kernel like NT & others (linux, in a way, with FUSE).

The Mach kernel is not always a microkernel: the inter-process communications had so much overhead that the easy way to improve performance was to fuse the servers back inside the kernel, thus going back to a monolithic (or at least hybrid) design. At one time, the Mach "microkernel" was so not "micro" that Jonathan S. Shapiro coined the name "nanokernel" to designate true microkernels.

Edited 2010-09-22 10:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: DDE Kit???
by fithisux on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: DDE Kit???"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

The Apple XNU kernel is not a microkernel.


Yes, I know.

The fact they use (only parts of) the Mach kernel is misleading, it is an hybrid kernel like NT & others (linux, in a way, with FUSE).


Yes, I know.

But they could port more easily parts of it including IOKit CFLite and other parts free parts to Hurd, like a more complete puredarwin by filling missing parts with Hurd.

Reply Score: 2

What are you people talking about?????
by ecruz on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 20:31 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

The article is about the vaporware and the never ending coming out "The Hurd". But you people go on a tangent and now are talking about all other types of OS. Stay focus boys!

By the way, the only reason that there is still work being done (albeit very little) on the Hurd is that crazyman Stallman does not have the guts to kill it. He is too jealous with Linux success and don't have the heart to do it hoping that maybe, somehow, one day they will finish the Hurd and he will try to push it down people's throat as a Linux replacement.

One last thing, if you call Linux, GNU/Linux, you have bought into Stallman craziness too and drank all the cool aid!

Reply Score: 0

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

By the way, the only reason that there is still work being done (albeit very little) on the Hurd is that crazyman Stallman does not have the guts to kill it. He is too jealous with Linux success and don't have the heart to do it hoping that maybe, somehow, one day they will finish the Hurd and he will try to push it down people's throat as a Linux replacement.

I don't think so. You attribute way too much power to Richard Stallman if you think that he has the power to drive so much people on a ever-failing project.

My theory is that Hurd, like some research projects in the OS world, exists because because computer science has its equivalent of theoretical physicists. People who want things to be done right, no matter if a quick-and-dirty hack exists, works well, and is widely used.

If a Hurd kernel existed and was usable on a wide range of machines, it could be a better option than Linux for many use cases. Because it would not be bloated yet, would have a more secure and robust microkernel infrastructure, and would be an easier codebase to work on. That's because of this "if" that many people still work on the Hurd project, and that's also because of this everything-should-be-done-right attitude and attempts at code reuse from various project that it didn't shipped a working kernel yet.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

If a Hurd kernel existed and was usable on a wide range of machines, it could be a better option than Linux for many use cases. Because it would not be bloated yet, would have a more secure and robust microkernel infrastructure, and would be an easier codebase to work on.


You could say the same thing about DragonFlyBSD and it is progressing at a much faster rate.

I agree with the parent that HURD exists for non-technical reasons. Declaring HURD a dead end would be too painful for Stallman. He is extremely jealous of the success of Linux as can be seen by how he yelled at a kid over not calling it GNU/Linux. The guy is a kook and there are better and more interesting alternative Nix kernels in development.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You could say the same thing about DragonFlyBSD and it is progressing at a much faster rate.

I agree with the parent that HURD exists for non-technical reasons. Declaring HURD a dead end would be too painful for Stallman. He is extremely jealous of the success of Linux as can be seen by how he yelled at a kid over not calling it GNU/Linux. The guy is a kook and there are better and more interesting alternative Nix kernels in development.

Yeah, but that's BSD. Some devs just prefer GPL, a current rationale being that they don't want to give code to big corporations for free...

<insert licensing debate and history of Webkit and here>

Maybe the reasons are not technical, but not linked to RMS either ?

Edited 2010-09-26 21:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

I shouldn't feed the troll but I will say the facts anyway.

Stallman can't kill Hurd, it is a free software project and it has life of its own. FSF has long ago stoped hiring hackers to work on Hurd, it is entirely hobbist project now. Last FSF-paid Hurd hacker was Roland McGrath who moved to work for Red Hat in 2002 (he works on glibc now).So, Stallman have done his part on killing Hurd by not spending FSF money on it! Are you more happy with Stallman now? Do you still think he is crazy?

Why am I even asking, you delusional RMS-haters wouldn't rest until see the guy dead. And then you would attack him because he died.

And one last thing: I will call the thing GNU/Linux just because I don't want buy into crazy RMS-haters' craziness. You have bought into someone else's craziness which is way more dangerous than RMS's.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

And one last thing: I will call the thing GNU/Linux just because I don't want buy into crazy RMS-haters' craziness. You have bought into someone else's craziness which is way more dangerous than RMS's.


And what is crazier than yelling at people who do not call it GNU/Linux, comparing proprietary developers to violent criminals, refusing to surf the web with images and eating your own toejam in front of a group of students?

Reply Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

So, is Stallman too jealous on Linus Torvalds, heh?

Stallman started the open source Unix operating system. It was done until 90%, and then a teenager with freckles came in and did the last 10% and got all the credit for all the many years of hard work from the GNU guys.

Who would not be slightly irritated? Every non computer guy thinks today Linus T wrote the entire Linux from scratch! I even met some computer guys thinking that too "Linus is super, who is this Stallman, why is he shouting? What has he to do with Linux? Ask Stallman to shut up".

Reply Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I get very irritated when I see kids nowadays trashing Stallman because he actually has the temerity of believing in something. You may agree with him or not, but GNU is his baby and he has a track record to back up his stances. I may disagree with him, but my respect he has earned. Some people nowadays seem to consider anyone who actually stands for something as being a threat to their entitlement to apathy.


Most of these kids do not comprehend that all those GNU tools they take for granted, used to be not only very expensive... but rather exclusive tools. I remember how back in the late 90s eve, SGI for example would charge a pretty penny not just for the compilers for Irix, but just the libraries themselves, on top of the hefty licensing costs for the OS and the HW.

It is easy to trash the farmer once the salad has made it to one's table and is ready to be eaten.

Edited 2010-09-25 05:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I get very irritated when I see kids nowadays trashing Stallman because he actually has the temerity of believing in something.


If anyone should be called kids it should be the people who follow him since they have a child like understanding of economics.

The heaven's gate cult leader also had strong beliefs, maybe he should have been admired as well.


It is easy to trash the farmer once the salad has made it to one's table and is ready to be eaten.


Without GNU the world would just have used FreeBSD and would probably be better off for it since it uses a standard base and wouldn't have encouraged endless sound stack and package format wars.

Stallman does not have viable alternatives to existing software development models. This can be seen in his recent answer to proprietary game development which is to lower your standards.

Reply Score: 2