The Hurd: GNU's Quest for the Perfect Kernel
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."
E-mail Print r 4   60 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/idv
Thread beginning with comment 442201
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 2