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 432135
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Fine, I understand that. But isn't it (the defense of the ideology) a little insignificant with respect to the massive undertaking that building an OS (more precisely a non-Linux-based OS) is today?

but it is being done in a way where the ideology comes optionally, which for him completely misses the point

What would anyone but the FSF gain if that way was actually pushing the ideology instead of making it optional?

I'm not the most passionate hardcore supporter of the free software movement and I can't stomach using Linux for more than a few hours a month. But Linux is free, it is mainstream (Ubuntu?), it encourages people to contribute and it opened the eyes/minds of some (like me) to open source, security issues, diversity, customization of software, etc. It deserves better than a lukewarm "It's a good system". Even I can find more positive adjectives about Linux.

It also has its weird sides, like a million distros, incompatible stacks, competing projects with the same features and goals, which always make me wonder why they don't join the efforts and ideas (hence my previous "I still don't see why HURD should be something to spend resources on").

Linux changed the world, maybe not as much as the iPhone :-) but it did serve the free software movement and the community, users and coders, pretty well. Only, not Stallman.

I'm with free and/or open software. But I'm not with "all software is free and open and only that" because, as I've said in another comment, software engineers, artists, etc. also have rents and mortgages to pay. Just today, I thought about this article http://osnews.com/story/23494/Profiting_From_Open_Source_-_Without_... and wondered how the IntelliJ people manage to survive when their own Community edition, Eclipse and Netbeans (there are probably many more such IDEs) are there and of such high quality.

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.

How can Linux being liked because it's practical be "dangerous"?
When he says "which would be an ironic way of failing", he's talking about failing to rally the larger crowd behind his ideology in its strictest sense, right?

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