The mostly-morubund Hurd project is well known for what it's not: the kernel at the heart of the GNU/Linux system. But there's a long and interesting story about what it could have been, too. From Linux User magazine: "The design of the Hurd was an attempt to embody the spirit and promise of the free software movement in code." Those are mighty ambitions, and this story is as much about competing visions as competing kernels. Says Thomas Bushnell: "My first choice was to take the BSD 4.4-Lite release and make a kernel. I knew the code, I knew how to do it. It is now perfectly obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the world would be a very different place today." This is a well-written and fascinating read.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2011-05-12
Point one is valid, I guess, even though OpenBSD and even Linux are or can be made pretty secure.
Not sure what value point two has, it sounds more like preference than technical advantage.
An operating system can have its advantages and cool features, but you also need software and hardware support. A game console without games is pretty useless.
Linux, to pick one, has hardware support, software, documentation, "community" and a bunch of qualified experts. A company can implement Linux and be pretty sure it will work and if it breaks can find someone to fix it.
If Hurd comes alive my feeling is it will be much more difficult to make it useful and find experts on it. The ones you can find will probably be pretty expensive.
Is it worth all that trouble for the extra security and not being a UNIX clone? Organizations that require above average security usually have a lot of money. Why spend that on a "hobby" project and not get some hardcore Linux guru's and use Linux, which has proven itself over the years.
Member since:2011-01-28
MOS6510,
"Why spend that on a 'hobby' project and not get some hardcore Linux guru's and use Linux, which has proven itself over the years."
Yes, the majority do choose that path, which reinforces the linux platform. Isn't it true that your criticisms of hurd would apply equally to any independent projects as well? Let me ask you, why does anyone bother building something different when there's already technology on the market that's been proven for years?
For me, the answer is that a technology landscape with the same players infinitum is boring... This is more of a mind exercise than a serious proposal, but I'd be extremely interested to see what we could build next if everyone just dropped linux and started from scratch with the benefit of the past 20 years of computers under our belts. What would be different?
Member since:
2005-07-08
Because Hurd is another approach to design micro-kernel operating systems:
- More security
- Not another UNIX clone
These two points alone are worth the further work some people might be willing to invest into Hurd.