Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU Hurd 0.6 released

permalink.gmane.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#31

Post by Demiurge »

0x0 wrote: post #19
duncan_bayne wrote: post #2

I'm sure there will be a few people chuckling at the news that the Hurd is still under development. Yesterday I learned from one of my colleagues that the newer versions of OSX will only run kernel extensions signed by Apple. The need for the GNU project is as great now as it was in the 1980s.

Windows has required code signing for kernel drivers since Vista on x64. Also, OSX doesn't require the kexts to be signed by Apple themselves - the requirement is that the kext is signed by a certificate that is blessed by Apple's CA. There are plenty of third party kexts out there. Also, you can modify the bootloader's kernel parameters to disable kext signing and you will be back where you were on 10.9 security-wis…

>Also, OSX doesn't require the kexts to be signed by Apple themselves - the requirement is that the kext is signed by a certificate that is blessed by Apple's CA. There are plenty of third party kexts out there.

I'm curious who has Apple blessed to do so, and what those kexts are?

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#32

Post by vcxzxcv »

stonogo wrote: post #15
madez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize that mobile devices like smartphones and tablets most often have a linux-based or an apple-delivered OS? Following Gartner [1], 60% of all devices shipped in 2014 have an OS based on Linux or delivered by Apple. Do you think that a law that prohibits making other people slaves is non-free in nature? Because the GPL prohibits something similiar. [1] https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2954317

Your invocation of slavery to generate sympathy for your political goals is disgusting.

You're the one who brought politics into this.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#33

Post by dietrichepp »

wildfire wrote: post #29
jheriko wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm chuckling a bit. but then the whole GNU ecosystem is about catering to a tiny minority with special priorities... inside of an even tinier minority of users of open source OSes. I'm sure I am just an outsider who doesn't really understand the needs or the motivations... Linux does well in the server world, and Apple get a lot of attention, but even then, between them, they account for something like 4% of OS inst…

Wow. Thanks for bringing back visions of the 1990s. These arguments were tiresome then; they are boring now. You are conflating GNU, GPL and LGPL. The GNU system may never be as successful as you think. But portions like The GNU Compiler Collection (gcc, go, etc.) and GnuPG (GNU Privacy Guard) and thinks like GNU Emacs are the standard which others are measured against. Second the "absolutely awful" licenses; being u…

The GPL in practice hasn't always resulted in more freedom compared to other licenses. For example, GCC is purposefully designed to be non-modular, to prevent people from developing proprietary front ends. You may agree or disagree with the trade-off, but observe the LLVM project: you have the freedom to manipulate IR outside the compiler. With GCC, you have permission to manipulate IR outside the compiler, but they've gone out of their way to make it difficult for you, so you might as well give up. LLVM's license makes the idea of impeding proprietary front ends a non-starter.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#34

Post by mavhc »

joshuapants wrote: post #17
bsaul wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that the weirdest UX feature of HN. In the age of mobile, having two 10px high buttons with opposite meaning separated by 5pixel is absurd.

And the complete inability to change your vote after the fact.

Perhaps they don't want people to use it on mobiles, if they want to encourage longer comments and more in depth articles perhaps.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#35

Post by AceJohnny2 »

digitalzombie wrote: post #25

Awesome. Between this, OpenBSD, Haiku/BeOS, Linux and DragonflyBSD are my fav in term of news and interesting things to read. The dude from DragonflyBSD was over at Slashdot talking about batchprocess vs msg passing pro, con, when to use it.

You piqued my interest. Was this [1] /. comment all he had to say about it?

[1] http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7252569&cid=494676...

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#36

Post by ptomato »

Demiurge wrote: post #31
0x0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows has required code signing for kernel drivers since Vista on x64. Also, OSX doesn't require the kexts to be signed by Apple themselves - the requirement is that the kext is signed by a certificate that is blessed by Apple's CA. There are plenty of third party kexts out there. Also, you can modify the bootloader's kernel parameters to disable kext signing and you will be back where you were on 10.9 security-wis…

>Also, OSX doesn't require the kexts to be signed by Apple themselves - the requirement is that the kext is signed by a certificate that is blessed by Apple's CA. There are plenty of third party kexts out there. I'm curious who has Apple blessed to do so, and what those kexts are?

Anybody who pays the $99/year to be an OS X developer and hasn't subsequently had their cert revoked for distributing malware.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#37

Post by JohnTHaller »

0x0 wrote: post #19
duncan_bayne wrote: post #2

I'm sure there will be a few people chuckling at the news that the Hurd is still under development. Yesterday I learned from one of my colleagues that the newer versions of OSX will only run kernel extensions signed by Apple. The need for the GNU project is as great now as it was in the 1980s.

Windows has required code signing for kernel drivers since Vista on x64. Also, OSX doesn't require the kexts to be signed by Apple themselves - the requirement is that the kext is signed by a certificate that is blessed by Apple's CA. There are plenty of third party kexts out there. Also, you can modify the bootloader's kernel parameters to disable kext signing and you will be back where you were on 10.9 security-wis…

Windows code signing is performed using a certificate available from the usual certificate authorities (Verisign, Thawte, etc, etc) that you pay to verify your identity and issue you a signing certificate.

Apple is the only one that enables OSX signing and it's done in conjunction with your Apple ID that you pay Apple a yearly fee to enable developer abilities on.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#38

Post by pessimizer »

oldmanjay wrote: post #20
joshuapants wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's quite similar. The GPL doesn't inhibit freedom, it inhibits the power to erode freedom.

The only way you can consider this "quite similar" is if you are using a rhetorical flourish to manipulate the listener emotionally. Which is, of course, what is being done here, and not for the first time on this particular topic. Just remember, hyperbole serves no master. Employ it at the risk of having it employed right back against you.

Can't you just accept that other people are honestly seeing something that you're (not seeing/see but don't agree with) rather than accusing people who disagree with you on this of being cynically dishonest?

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#39

Post by Demiurge »

ptomato wrote: post #36
Demiurge wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, OSX doesn't require the kexts to be signed by Apple themselves - the requirement is that the kext is signed by a certificate that is blessed by Apple's CA. There are plenty of third party kexts out there. I'm curious who has Apple blessed to do so, and what those kexts are?

Anybody who pays the $99/year to be an OS X developer and hasn't subsequently had their cert revoked for distributing malware.

Well, that's quite accessible. Good to know, thanks.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#40

Post by ggchappell »

Do we need some new terminology? There does not seem to be a word for the kind of thing Hurd is. "Replacement for the Unix kernel" seems a bit wordy. It's a thing that does what ordinary folk expect a kernel to do. So technically, it's a kind of virtual kernel, I suppose, but that would be far too easy to misunderstand.

On a completely different note, just what is it about some software projects that stretches them out over such huge time scales? Hurd, Perl 6, LaTeX 3, etc.

Post reply on HN