[deleted]
GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
11–20 of 66 posts
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#12haha, thought this title first read GNUrd Hurd. Dang dyslexia.
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#13The changelog is so small... Can someone explain why do we need this? Why would we want to use it?
we don't want til 2060 https://xkcd.com/1508/
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#14The changelog is so small... Can someone explain why do we need this? Why would we want to use it?
It is unlikely that this will ever take off.
As I understand it, the idea of this project is to build a microkernel and associated systems that might compete as an alternative to the Linux kernel.
This would allow things like, more elegant hot patching of the kernel, formal verification of core parts of the kernel, better hardware enforced isolation of different systems for security. I guess also some people like the idea of a GPL3 kernel against tivoisation.
I can see why someone might adopt a mature version of this for say, a safety or security critical system. Trouble is, until it is mature and battle tested, its not a good bet for those things. And without adoption, it's not gonna mature or get used.
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. However, there will never be AGP or IDE for it. In fact there is no hardware with PCI and RISC V and may never be. My point is that they could solve the "what hardware do we support" problem by porting to architecture that doesn't have any hardware yet ;-) it would be gamble on an arch...
Do modern motherboards even still ship with AGP and IDE? I thought those were on a death march almost a decade ago.
No they don't make them any more. But my AMD64 machine from 2005 has AGP, IDE, and SATA. It's well supported by Fedora 25 which is a month old. Unless you're in new territory you have to decide what to support and will never gain traction due to the limited support.
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. However, there will never be AGP or IDE for it. In fact there is no hardware with PCI and RISC V and may never be. My point is that they could solve the "what hardware do we support" problem by porting to architecture that doesn't have any hardware yet ;-) it would be gamble on an arch...
Do modern motherboards even still ship with AGP and IDE? I thought those were on a death march almost a decade ago.
No they don't make them any more. But my AMD64 machine from 2005 has AGP, IDE, and SATA. It's well supported by Fedora 25 which is a month old. Unless you're in new territory you have to decide what to support and will never gain traction due to the limited support.
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most device drivers are more or less independent of CPU architecture. A PCI card is going to be the same PCI card no matter whether it's running on x86, Power, RISC-V or anything else.
Device drivers don't execute on the device. They execute on the CPU, instructing the OS how to use the device. So device drivers do need to support both the CPU architecture and the OS platform.
They may need compiled to a specific architecture, but the actual driver code itself is pretty device-independent. Unless you're doing something like implementing your own bus instead of using something like PCI, aside from weird corner cases, the code at that level doesn't care.
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#18haha, thought this title first read GNUrd Hurd. Dang dyslexia.
Beware of using dang here, as it might confuse people with HN admin ;)
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#19It's kind of unbelievable that HURD is still going. It's been the butt of many a joke in the Unix world: our equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever, or Mordeth.
I can't admire their release schedule, but you're got to admire their persistance.
One day, it might just be ready...
Re: GNU Hurd 0.9, GNU Mach 1.8, GNU MIG 1.8 Released
#20The changelog is so small... Can someone explain why do we need this? Why would we want to use it?
I agree. Given the massive success of BSD opensource L4, I think the only reason for Hurd's continued claim is its association with Stallman. Are there any technical merits here?