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

41–50 of 118 posts

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#41

Post by huxley »

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…

That was Linksys not Netgear.

re: GPL/LGPL being the most successful software licenses, that seems to be changing in favour of permissive licenses like MIT/BSD/Apache

Back in 2013, Aaron Williamson of the Software Freedom Law Center did an analysis of licenses used on Github. The MIT license outnumbered all variations of GPL + LGPL licenses combined, second to MIT on the list was BSD (of course, it should be mentioned that most repositories on Github lacked any identifiable license at all)

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2013/lcs-slides-aar...

Martin Thoma analyzed PyPi (Python Package Index) metadata in January and also found that no license was the top category, but where there is a license, MIT/BSD/Apache licenses outnumbered GPL/LGPL by quite a bit.

http://martin-thoma.com/analyzing-pypi-metadata/#tocAnchor-1...

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#42

Post by nothrabannosir »

mavhc wrote: post #34
joshuapants wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bad UI keeps everyone but the most desperate (hello) at bay. 4chan used to do the same to increase the signal/noise ratio.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#44

Post by beefsack »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #37
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…

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.

The fact that this became a back and forth of people arguing which is worst just highlights the fact that this sort of low level infrastructure needs to be free and open.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#46

Post by digitalzombie »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #35
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...

Yeah, that's the one I read. I think that's most of it.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#47

Post by cbd1984 »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #42
mavhc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bad UI keeps everyone but the most desperate (hello) at bay. 4chan used to do the same to increase the signal/noise ratio.

> 4chan

You're right, maybe this place does need word filters.

/sarcasm... well, kinda

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#48

Post by cbd1984 »

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.

What does the Hurd have to do with the GNU Project as a whole? Haven't other kernels filled the role?

It's possible to separate what the GNU Project does now from what it was originally slated to do 30+ years ago. Providing a solid userspace and suite of libraries is no less important than providing a specific kind of microkernel.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#49

Post by cbd1984 »

ocfx wrote: post #10

The real question is... is it semver?

How much does semver make sense for an OS kernel? It makes more sense to split out function calls into families based on purpose and stability, and declare that this family of functions is stable, this family is not, and focus on keeping the kernel running in a stable fashion regardless of the declared version number.

If anything, that makes even more sense for a microkernel, with different function call families being provided by different servers.

Re: GNU Hurd 0.6 released

#50

Post by baldfat »

jheriko wrote: post #6
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.

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…

I down voted because of the strong statements that didn't seem fact checked before posting. Also posting an exact percentage of 4% when you didn't look. I don't care much for Apple but they are owning "Consumer" OS metrics right now.

Tech Crunch states that OS X has a 13.6% market share of consumers purchases. http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/07/mac-achieves-highest-u-s-pc...

I myself use Linux and Windows machines. I prefer my own hackery terminals and tiled window manager for my desktop so I am in that tiny minority. I do not support most of RMS (Richard Stallman) says but Absolutly GNU has been a technology changer and all Open Source which effects all operating systems today owe a debt to GNU and that license.

So please don't just post bah humbug without backing up why you would say such harsh things about anything. The more you disagree the more that is needed to be communicated on the your part to start a conversation.

Post reply on HN