Slashdot Mirror
Preinstalled Hurd Now Available
Roger_Wilco writes "The GNU Web site is announcing that Spacetime Systems will now install GNU/Hurd as well as GNU/Linux. Hurd is Object Oriented, unlike Linux, so it may be a superior system in the long run."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This is very, very cool. The HURD is awesome, and I for one am going to be following it very closely as it develops.
For all of the people who are now going to bash the HURD as completely useless and still in development, keep in mind that linux was once at the point that the HURD currently is. It's in development, there are probably more things to be implemented than things that have already been implemented (although any developers feel free to jump in and comment at length about the status relative to the long term goals of the project) but the project is VERY cool.
It doesn't *compete* with linux in the way that you might think - it's sort of a UNIX, but it's based off of the Mach microkernel, which is a very different way of going about operating system design than your typical UNIX.
Let's face it, of course linux rocks, but in terms of operating system design concepts, linux really didn't change much, it just took ideas that were already out there and created an excellent implementation of said ideas. The HURD on the other hand is based on a different worldview of operating systems and has a lot of promise.
Besides, how bad can it be to have another choice for an operating system? You don't have to use Linux, BSD, Win95, or HURD, but it's good to know that the choice is out there. Personally, I don't know if I'm ready to join the HURD, but I'm watching the code, and I plan to jump in and contribute where I can.
And to all you people who say that the term GNU/Linux is a total travesty of fairness on the part of the FSF, the HURD is pretty much the last component of the GNU system that is needed. Whether they choose to call that GNU/HURD or just HURD is up to them, but if you look at the HURD in terms of the framework of GNU's work, it explains a lot about why Stallman wants to call Linux GNU/Linux. (And I agree with him)
Regardless of what you may have read above, I agree with you. Support the Free Software Foundation http://www.gnu.org/
I've noticed a few posts asking what the advantage of rewriting the kernel in a language like C++. I don't know the answer, but in the linux kernel mailing list faq, question 1.4 states:
Why don't we rewrite the Linux kernel in C++?
(ADB [Andrew D. Balsa]) Again, this has to do with practical and theoretical reasons. On the practical side, when Linux got started gcc didn't have an efficient C++ implementation, and some people would argue that even today it doesn't. Also there are many more C programmers than C++ programmers around. On theoretical grounds, examples of OS's implemented in Object Oriented languages are rare (Java-OS and Oberon System 3 come to mind), and the advantages of this approach are not quite clear cut (for OS design, that is; for GUI implementation KDE is a good example that C++ beats plain C any day).
and
(REW [Roger E. Wolff]) In the dark old days, in the time that most of you hadn't even heard of the word "Linux", the kernel was once modified to be compiled under g++. That lasted for a few revisions. People complained about the performance drop. It turned out that compiling a piece of C code with g++ would give you worse code. It shouldn't have made a difference, but it did. Been there, done that.
And question 1.5:
Why is the Linux kernel monolithic? Why don't we rewrite it as a microkernel?
(ADB) No opinions here, just a few pointers. Linux has been implemented as a "personality" on top of a modified version of the Mach3 microkernel. This is a fully functional piece of code, known as MkLinux. The project was in part funded by Apple, and as such it was running at first on PowerPC Macs. But an x86 version is available, with fully open source code. Similarly, the Hurd (the GNU kernel) is being implemented on top of Mach3.
There is a historical Usenet thread related to this subject, dating back from 1992, with posts from Linus, Andrew Tanenbaum, Roger Wolff, Theodore Y T'so, David Miller and others. Nice reading on a rainy afternoon. It's fascinating to see how some predictions (which seemed rather reasonable at the time) have proved wrong over
the years (for example, that we would all be using RISC chips by 1998).
you use OO programming you MUST be more careful in your design (in order to really get any benefits OO programming gives you).
Object oriented design gives you more dimensions in which to design -- thus more opportunities to screw up, as well as more ways to simplify projects.
I'm curious exactly what it means for an operating system to be object oriented. Unless you put a very precise definition on it, anything can be called object oriented. It used to be people tried to say that you need three different things to qualify: encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism.
Encapsulation is a snap for any OS worthy of the name. For files, you can work at the file descriptor level or the file handle level. Very few applications work by setting device registers these days. Unix does a nice job of stretching the file abstraction fit over things like serial ports.
Inheritance is a tricky one. I can see some interesting things such as abstracting out different kinds of files. Unix basically provides only a couple of different primitive file types, but it would be interesting to be able to create subclasses of random addressible files for indexed files, balanced b-trees etc. At this stage it kind of blurs the line between the operating system, utility libraries and applications.
Is this a good thing? It beats the hell out of me. It might be pretty cool. I think, for example, that Reiser FS is interesting because it allows you to efficiently create data structures that normally would require specialied file structures using standard filesystem operations. This extends the range of simple scripting type applications. On the other hand, once you start subclassing well understood objects such as files and directories, some of the simplicity of using a well understood model such as files/directories goes out the window.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I have yet to have anyone convince me that there will be any substantial practical advantage to the HURD over Linux in the long term. And we've been waiting for it to arrive for /at least/ 10 years.
The best Linux using lay person argument for the Hurd is a Windows vs. Linux analogy, i.e. the Hurd just lets the user screw with more stuff. The counter argument is basically "shure eating (abstraction) is importent, but eating too much will make you fat and slow."
Personally, I suspect the Hurd (or some other microkernel) will ultimatly depose Linux by addicting people to the additional power and flexability (i.e. past experence will be the only convincing argument for the people who eventually switch). This dose not necissarily mean that the current incarnation of the Hurd has the right stuff.
Analogy continued: Abstraction is like eating in that you must do it tomarrow too, i.e. what is a reasonable compramize between usability (abstraction) and effeciency today may be starving tomarrow (because the abstraction is necissary to process the increased quantity of information).
Also, the Hurd has some interesting ideas, but I am concerned that it *may* be too much the "bastard child of Unix" to really provide the abstract interface people will need in the future, i.e. translators are a really neet idea, but I am unconvinced that they are the best we could be doing. I have this fealing that the real revolution would somehow involve the scripting langauges in a more fundamental way. Who knows.
It is worth mentioning that abstract and structured dose not always imply slow, but we currently do not depend much on our compilers for opimisation since we are increasing chip speed so fast. Eventually, we will hit a limit in chip speed and need more structured langagues which allow more automatic opimisations by the compiler.
Example: It is possible to do global analysis of functional code that you would never dream of doing to C code.
Example: some of the fastest OSes out there are microkernels which could be writen in a protable high level language, but no portable high level langauge has the balls to preform the optimisations (higher order function, i.e. fucntions which write functions or structured self-modifing code).
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Mountain View, CA., September 22 - HURDOne, Inc., a leading-edge developer of HURD software, products and services, filed to raise $24 Million in an initial public offering, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The Mountain View, California-based Company offers online products, tools, news, and services for the HURD operating system and other "open source" communities, at its website http://www.hurdone.net/.
Under its open source model, anyone may contribute to the software coding.
The Company's principal product, HURDOne OS, provides a wide variety of server functions, including setting up a web, e-mail, file or print server, as well as using the computer as a general purpose desktop workstation to perform virtually any computer function. HURDOne OS will be available in English, Chinese, Japanese, German, Spanish and French.
HURDOne plans to sell 3 million shares in the IPO and will have approximately 9.2 million shares outstanding once the sale is completed, according to the filing.
The company was founded and is run by its President, Dr. One L. Inux, Jr., who has worked in senior engineering and technology positions at Hughes Aircraft Co., Teledyne Systems, Co., and California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dr. Inux was also Chief of Artificial Intelligence Branch, NASA Ames Research Center and organized Lockheed's Artificial Intelligence Center. He was the former founder and CEO of Alantic Macroelectronics and WebCIS.
HURDOne applied to sell its shares on NASDAQ under the symbol "HURD".
The company will be in its "Quiet Period" during SEC review of its filing, which is available on EDGAR.
About HURDOne
Our company provides world-class quality HURD software targeted to the server, workstation and home environments. It is distinguished by the unchallenged availability of applications and platform support, ease of installation and use, and technical support. The software is characterized by stability, security and usability. HURDOne expects to become the highest rated supplier of HURD solutions based on packaging, support, and capability worldwide.
Speak truth to power.