Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Apr 2012 12:02 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 513288
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: QNX to FSF = HURD
by demetrioussharpe on Mon 9th Apr 2012 20:32
in reply to "RE: QNX to FSF = HURD"
The problem with HURD is not the lack of a viable microkernel, its with HURD's complex design and ambitious goals combined with lack of developer resources.
In retrospect, they probably should have in the name of freedom, just done a FOSS unix-like clone. Its pretty clear the FOSS market chose that in GNU/Linux, rather than trying to realize the HURD.
In retrospect, they probably should have in the name of freedom, just done a FOSS unix-like clone. Its pretty clear the FOSS market chose that in GNU/Linux, rather than trying to realize the HURD.
Right! At this stage of the game, HURD's the poster child for vaperware.
RE[3]: QNX to FSF = HURD
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 9th Apr 2012 22:34
in reply to "RE[2]: QNX to FSF = HURD"
No, the development is in the open. Its been worked on, and you can track the progress and even test it on virtual machines. Not what I would call vaporware.
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/




Member since:
2006-07-14
The problem with HURD is not the lack of a viable microkernel, its with HURD's complex design and ambitious goals combined with lack of developer resources.
In retrospect, they probably should have in the name of freedom, just done a FOSS unix-like clone. Its pretty clear the FOSS market chose that in GNU/Linux, rather than trying to realize the HURD.