Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:15 UTC, submitted by Gregory Plummer
Permalink for comment 442201
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
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.