Linked by David Adams on Thu 1st Jul 2010 08:52 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The HURD was meant to be the true kernel at the heart of the GNU operating system. The promise behind the HURD was revolutionary -- a set of daemons on top of a microkernel that was intended to surpass the performance of the monolithic kernels of traditional Unix systems and in doing so, give greater security, freedom and flexibility to the users -- but it has yet to come down to earth.
Thread beginning with comment 432125
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hurd ... knock knock .. are you listening
by fithisux on Thu 1st Jul 2010 10:12 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

I believe that Hurd is doing very bad management of its very limited resources. From what I understand the lack of uKernel is not the main obstacle. But they could use present technologies

1. OKL4 and dump mach.
2. Reuse syllable implementations of Posix API and merge to increase resources.
3. Lock on Linux DDE Kit
4. Reuse components from smaller projects or open source corporate projects despite licencing.
5. Improve web presence
6. Aim at today, not 100000AD
7. If gcc does not provide capabilities, postpone it for later. Genode OS works without them.

When people have few resources they adapt the problem at hand. This is how OSS works. In this case I see a corporate attitude and more specifically the bad side of it. Ten years later we will do the same questions.

Edited 2010-07-01 10:28 UTC

Reply Score: 7

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

In this case I see a corporate attitude and more specifically the bad side of it.


Corporate attitude would have aimed at a somewhat short term release. Some sort of deadline or target timeframe. This is another attitude I can see no similarity with, not even in research.

After reading the three pages of the article, I still don't see why HURD should be something to spend resources on. That's just me but are they clear about their objectives and motives? Because twenty years in technology is still not a whole geological era but it's a long time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

"The GNU/Linux system is catching on somewhat more now. The system is becoming popular for practical reasons. It's a good system. The danger is people will like it because it's practical and it will become popular without anyone having the vaguest idea of the ideals behind it, which would be an ironic way of failing".

Thats why. Linus doesn't like the FSF ideals, and is completely opposed to pushing their agenda, so Stallman is in sort of a strange position; his software and software license is now being used by several orders of magnitude more people then it used to be, but it is being done in a way where the ideology comes optionally, which for him completely misses the point. The whole 'GNU/Linux' naming sillyness is an effort to combat that, but I am sure they would rather not have the most visible developer of the largest gnu related ecosystem always talk about how he only went with the GPL to enforce the whole "share and share alike" thing, rather then their whole "proprietary software is evil" thing.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Corporate attitude would have aimed at a somewhat short term release. Some sort of deadline or target timeframe. This is another attitude I can see no similarity with, not even in research.


Agreed - no profit-making company would allow a project to drag on like this, 20 years with nothing to show for it. Under a real "corporate attitude", it would have had a year or two to demonstrate feasibility, and having failed to do so, been killed off promptly.

Reply Parent Score: 3