71–80 of 99 posts
I'm curious, but why are people still spending time and resources on Hurd? Is it curiosity or is there some use case for Hurd that I'm not aware of? Thanks.
I can't speak for the developer of Hurd. But I think it's fun and something different. It's one of the few OS up there that seems to be able to take advantage of multicores. Other such as barrelfish and dragonflyBSD.
Hurd doesn't even support SMP yet.
Does the Hurd team go around lecturing people who call it "Hurd" about how it's actually "GNU"/Hurd, how Hurd is the kernel and that's only one part, or is that only when the kernel wasn't their idea?
Hurd is a GNU project so it doesn't even really need a second mention, it only needs that mention because there is a competing kernel (Linux) that is used with the system. Otherwise it's just known as the GNU system. The kernel is pretty irrelevant for most users, we don't call it Android/Linux or Windows/NT for a reason. A kernel is not an operating system. Calling the whole OS Linux is both inaccurate and does not…
I don't think it's nice to spit in the face of a person that hands you half of the cake you wanted. The GNU project has the freedom to get their own HURD kernel into a sufficiently working state and compete, which does not seem to be that trivial a task for all the years I've been following this drama.
Design failures highlighted in the Hurd critique paper still not addressed.
I'd look elsewhere, such as Genode with seL4, or Minix3.
Does the Hurd team go around lecturing people who call it "Hurd" about how it's actually "GNU"/Hurd, how Hurd is the kernel and that's only one part, or is that only when the kernel wasn't their idea?
Hurd is a GNU project so it doesn't even really need a second mention, it only needs that mention because there is a competing kernel (Linux) that is used with the system. Otherwise it's just known as the GNU system. The kernel is pretty irrelevant for most users, we don't call it Android/Linux or Windows/NT for a reason. A kernel is not an operating system. Calling the whole OS Linux is both inaccurate and does not…
Does the Hurd team go around lecturing people who call it "Hurd" about how it's actually "GNU"/Hurd, how Hurd is the kernel and that's only one part, or is that only when the kernel wasn't their idea?
Does the Hurd team go around lecturing people who call it "Hurd" about how it's actually "GNU"/Hurd, how Hurd is the kernel and that's only one part, or is that only when the kernel wasn't their idea?
Hurd is the official kernel of GNU project, so essentially it's just GNU. You could call it Debian GNU but I guess since that's confusing they decided to call it Debian GNU/Hurd.
I'm curious, but why are people still spending time and resources on Hurd? Is it curiosity or is there some use case for Hurd that I'm not aware of? Thanks.
Hurd is part of the GNU system; it's the intended kernel for the GNU userspace. Linux has been used as an intermediary because Hurd isn't ready for widespread use. But the idea has always been that Hurd would replace Linux and create a GNU system that is entirely under the FSF. Beyond the philosophical differences, another difference is that Hurd is a microkernel and Linux is monolithic. Hurd can be considered a rese…
I don't think that's the case. The FSF has long been satisfied that Linux meets its goals for an OS kernel, and the Hurd project has changed somewhat from "this will be the final piece of the GNU operating system" to "this is something we're working on to explore microkernel design." I think its developers have given up on it ever replacing Linux, as it's very behind in hardware support, and the gap is only ever growing rather than shrinking. For example, it doesn't support multicore or 64-bit userland (in a time when projects are pulling 32-bit userland support!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually no. These are small os's, they're great and useful. There are others. My former, now banrkupt, employers claim L4 code I contributed to is running on over a billion phones. is uTron, eCos etc still dominant in that space? This is not showing the touted benefits of microkernel based, multiserver operating systems. This is not a secure operating system, this is not a robust operating system, this is not self-h…
To me it looks like you have some issues pending with L4 folks, that's alright. Meanwhile the industry will keep on slowly adopting micro-kernel inspired best practices, even if you don't see any benefit in doing so. Now hop to reading a bit more about Driver Kit on Catalina.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You started a flamewar and then perpetuated it. We ban accounts that do that. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and not doing that on HN? We're trying for better than that here. Also, we don't want this place to burn to a crisp, which is what eventually happens with flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." I reject the idea that I started a flame war. I felt I followed the guideline above and did it in the face of pjmlp being personal, dismissive and non-substantiative while pointing out that this was happening. I did my best but if you say I failed because he hit his mark and got a rise out of me t…
By the way, it's clear that you know a lot and have a lot of experience with this topic. That's great! We want people like you commenting on what they know about. But it's necessary to keep yourself within the site guidelines while doing so—they're written the way they are from long experience with what makes internet conversations and communities workable. That doesn't make it easy. We all know how annoying it becomes when the person we're arguing with doesn't 'get it' and seems to stubbornly resist our attempts to reason with them. A lot of the time they're probably feeling the same way. The only solution is to restrain oneself, whether the other person is doing so or not.