11–20 of 273 posts
Kind of weird to see linux called out as too big, and then the ack that writing a ton of device drivers is hard and will take time. Isn't that a large part of the source tree? Realizing I haven't even tried compiling a kernel in a long long time. Feels oddly sad to say.
Kind of weird to see linux called out as too big, and then the ack that writing a ton of device drivers is hard and will take time. Isn't that a large part of the source tree? Realizing I haven't even tried compiling a kernel in a long long time. Feels oddly sad to say.
I agree, it's odd. I don't have anything recent, but back in 2004, the majority of the Linux kernel code was in its drivers: https://dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html I expect that most of the current Linux kernel code is also for handling hardware (that is, drivers + the code to handle various architectures).
Kind of weird to see linux called out as too big, and then the ack that writing a ton of device drivers is hard and will take time. Isn't that a large part of the source tree? Realizing I haven't even tried compiling a kernel in a long long time. Feels oddly sad to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurd is a microkernel so it is lean by design. I suspect that statement was a dig on perceived architectural flaw of Linux.
I get that. But it is still an unfair dig when a large chunk of the code that is being pointed at is the code that they will have to write? (Granted, they can put an easier line in the sand on how far back they go on what they support hardware wise, but still...)
Kind of weird to see linux called out as too big, and then the ack that writing a ton of device drivers is hard and will take time. Isn't that a large part of the source tree? Realizing I haven't even tried compiling a kernel in a long long time. Feels oddly sad to say.
Can get a sense of how long it takes to compile here https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel surprisingly fast with modern processors.
Really, the speed of compilation is such that I understand why so many source distribution methods are as popular as they are now. Feels funny to have come to that point so effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that. But it is still an unfair dig when a large chunk of the code that is being pointed at is the code that they will have to write? (Granted, they can put an easier line in the sand on how far back they go on what they support hardware wise, but still...)
It's not about the code existing, it's about the code being an integral part of a monolithic architecture vs. "servers" facilitating a microkernel design like hurd/mach.
To that end, how different is it, actually? And what are the other tradeoffs?
Is it really alive? No SMP, no stable x64 port. No ARM port.
It was clear there's a severe lack of manpower on the project. I think it'd have to be rewritten in rust or something hip to get new blood today.
I’m surprised to see that Mach is still the microkernel for Hurd. When I last (very casually) followed Hurd development two decades ago, Mach was generally regarded as obsolete and there were hopes to base Hurd on a new microkernel like seL4.
Kind of weird to see linux called out as too big, and then the ack that writing a ton of device drivers is hard and will take time. Isn't that a large part of the source tree? Realizing I haven't even tried compiling a kernel in a long long time. Feels oddly sad to say.
"the GNU/Hurd is Unix(POSIX)-compatible, so most things work"... well that's to be said for MacOS, QNX, etc. In practice, where is the "65% of the Debian archive can be built for the Hurd" figure coming from? I'm sure it can be built in theory, how much does it require source modifications?