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."
Thread beginning with comment 441988
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Outdated article
by Radio on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Outdated article"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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Outdated article
by dvhh on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 00:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Outdated article
by gus3 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 07:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Outdated article"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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 02:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Outdated article
by mckill on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:06 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Outdated article
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:33 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Outdated article
by Boomshiki on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 21:53 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 Parent Score: 1