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

GNU/Hurd in 2010

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#21

Post by rbanffy »

j_baker wrote: post #5

I always felt that GNU continued Hurd development out of spite that no one would call Linux GNU/Linux.

No. It continued because Hurd is very elegant and, for some people, this matters a lot. I'd love to run GNU/Hurd as my main OS, but, right now, that's not feasible.

Right now, you can reasonably choose between a Unix workalike that's GPL'ed, a BSD-flavour of Unix that's BSD'ed, the bastard child of VMS and a very elegant OS that's only sold bundled with fairly ordinary x86 PCs inside very elegant exteriors.

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#22

Post by wazoox »

tzs wrote: post #16

It's interesting to look at the advantages they list, and see (1) which are also covered by Linux, (2) which are not covered by Linux but are of questionable usefulness, and (3) which are not covered by Linux and are useful--and then to see if these could be brought to Linux reasonably. It's free software, so anybody can use, modify, and redistribute it under the terms of the ?GNU General Public License (GPL). Linux…

One of the most interesting aspect of Hurd is its security model. It's extremely safe, and allows very fine-grained authorisations.

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#23

Post by joe_the_user »

ajray wrote: post #11

The original post of v0.01 Linux (by Linus Torvalds): "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." He's referencing the project that became GNU/Hurd. What I'm saying is that they've been working on it since the inception of Linux, and it's still not done yet. (Found that post while working on a google summer of code project for Minix. I really re…

Yes, but they (gnu) gave up putting a lot of resources into it when Linux became successful.

They're idealists and realist...

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#24

Post by contextfree »

j_baker wrote: post #5

I always felt that GNU continued Hurd development out of spite that no one would call Linux GNU/Linux.

My understanding is that Richard Stallman hasn't been significantly involved with the Hurd project for a very long time - it's being driven by the developers, who are motivated by their passion for the design goals of the project.

Basically, as soon as Linux existed and creating a kernel ceased to be an immediate need for the GNU project, the Hurd stopped being an "industrial" project and became a research project. The small team of developers that remains is trying to make a fundamental technical advance in operating systems; that's always fraught with uncertainty, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#25

Post by InclinedPlane »

iwwr wrote: post #17
Nate75Sanders wrote: post #10

Can't wait til this is released so I can play Duke Nukem Forever on it.

This joke has an expiration date of May 3rd this year. Best to use it while we still can.

Possibly this joke gets even better after DNF comes out. If they can make even Duke Nukem Forever real why canMt they ever release HURD.

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#26

Post by InclinedPlane »

GeoffWozniak wrote: post #9
nika wrote: post #3

I gave up on Hurd back in the late 1980s. I'm not kidding. Before it was even called Hurd. I had heard for several years that GNU was going to make their own kernel. Eventually I gave up and stopped hoping for a release.

I think of it as GNU/Xanadu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu

Hurd/Linux and Xanadu/WWW are classic examples of worse is better, minimum viable products, and perfection being an enemy of goodness.

Imagine what kind of world we would be in today if we had had to wait for Hurd and Xanadu?

Shipping is always a feature, and sometimes perfection at the cost of depriving the world of goodness is just the vice of excessive pride dressed up in other clothes.

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#27

Post by pluies »

iwwr wrote: post #17
Nate75Sanders wrote: post #10

Can't wait til this is released so I can play Duke Nukem Forever on it.

This joke has an expiration date of May 3rd this year. Best to use it while we still can.

> This joke has an expiration date of May 3rd this year.

Call me Thomas, but I'll believe it when I see it...

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#28

Post by bootload »

2010: from the article "... The Hurd doesn't fully deliver on the everyday usability goal yet ..."

1992: from comp.os.linux, Theodore Ts'o "... I am aware of the benefits of a micro kernel approach. However, the fact remains that Linux is here, and GNU isn't --- and people have been working on Hurd for a lot longer than Linus has been working on Linux. ..." ~ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/31a5ea16e86...

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#29

Post by chipsy »

drdaeman wrote: post #19
tzs wrote: post #16

It's interesting to look at the advantages they list, and see (1) which are also covered by Linux, (2) which are not covered by Linux but are of questionable usefulness, and (3) which are not covered by Linux and are useful--and then to see if these could be brought to Linux reasonably. It's free software, so anybody can use, modify, and redistribute it under the terms of the ?GNU General Public License (GPL). Linux…

> For example, in the filesystem area A good example, because GNU Hurd has different view on filesystems implementation. Debian GNU/Hurd project has fairly nice explainations here: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-doc-translator With GNU/Linux you're stuck with "classical" filesystems. GNU Hurd allows to have all sort of fancy things, for example to file to be both file and directory (which is totally impossible…

Microkernels in general make for a great case-study on why arbitrary flexibility may not provide user value. Most of the OS doesn't have a need for "alien," radically innovative subsystem development - improvements to things like scheduling are mostly incremental in nature. Filesystems are one of the huge exceptions to this rule.

Re: GNU/Hurd in 2010

#30

Post by junkbit »

terhechte wrote: post #7

Did someone ever analyze the 20year Hurd-History and write a book about it? I wonder what were the main factors that contributed to its (incredibly) slow development. Maybe there're lessons to learn here, there have to be. Edit: Typo, 20 years, not 27

They've been working on the important features first such as gopherfs
Post reply on HN